Received: from mail-yk0-f190.google.com ([209.85.160.190]:41471) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XS39P-0002KI-AI for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:59 -0700 Received: by mail-yk0-f190.google.com with SMTP id 79sf1150802ykr.27 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:subject:from:date:to :message-id:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xa5ierg2tro6nS304+JGuuEcVKU5XGiMreKBx8ywCh8=; b=aGGsNglMUmshtrGL0dYlJkr1cHhOFN2XJusRYcD0vtboPBre2ZKJ6bA8XvcGqyiPo0 a0cWECRq3iiwLZjQYSOE0lmamnz8dP5+SYsgWVxl3v1ZGByLAuuV7DzVq1P6r3sd/GL1 ZUE8ds+kMIy0QZnh4DQFCsb7FSVBUJXjGV96ijk23HvikSwP85ZqNAtnlDI5Hn7L0vP4 GpponPGKxB9USrWo9zUcKrdJP7muQz/R4fL1/mdyQj2Z7iWhoMPprrCw3eKmSwdal97d agCKzCc1ZXEm4YqoVS1UzRoe/o3jubjvJ2t7nNTwPkNPaRUXD0vddryUBXk5IRK+u7hl 1seQ== X-Received: by 10.140.104.109 with SMTP id z100mr20qge.24.1410437212673; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.102.197 with SMTP id w63ls121859qge.93.gmail; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.123.200 with SMTP id v48mr233887yhh.54.1410437212046; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x231.google.com (mail-qc0-x231.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id im3si171654qcb.1.2014.09.11.05.06.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of comcaresvcs@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231; Received: by mail-qc0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i8so21018347qcq.36 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.84.133 with SMTP id j5mr839931qcl.14.1410437211840; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.36] (c-71-62-159-64.hsd1.va.comcast.net. [71.62.159.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w92sm442976qgd.45.2014.09.11.05.06.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 05:06:50 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [lojban] Digest for lojban@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 3 topics From: Karen Stein Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:06:43 -0400 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-ID: X-Original-Sender: comcaresvcs@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of comcaresvcs@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=comcaresvcs@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----O7RCQI1QL5QEHT2XWMLB6JOKY48MI8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed ------O7RCQI1QL5QEHT2XWMLB6JOKY48MI8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In sorry, but I can't get my new email program to reply specifying a topic.= .. State of the language... I can certainly state that people drop out of lojban learning and even foll= owing because the language isn't stable enough. The entire local group quit= . It will never be perfect because no language is, and I believe it still n= eeds the starting point specified from which changes can evolve slowly. I'm the only one from this group who's even following it now, and the argu= ments about the same exact issue of if lojban needs a baseline is getting v= ery old. I also know people who still feel there is too much flux to learn = lojban. Adding gismu, as I've seen discussed, is not minor. Everything can = be expressed as is (fu'ivla, etc) and over decades and longer of usage thes= e may shorten to gismu, but the changes don't have to happen immediately. C= hange that is too quick makes the language harder to learn and the speaker = base grow more slowly. This is what a baseline was supposed to prevent. I'm also seeing proposals based on how a single language expresses somethin= g which is counter to lojban, in my opinion. This is still malglico, or mal= -whatever.=20 Finally, remember that even this language has speakers, learners, and poten= tial learners who aren't online, who can't participate in the discussions o= f "improvements", and who want to know the language isn't changing undernea= th them. .karis On September 10, 2014 1:18:30 PM EDT, lojban@googlegroups.com wrote: >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >Today's topic summary >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D > >Group: lojban@googlegroups.com >Url:=20 >https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=3Ddigest&utm_medium=3Demail/#!= forum/lojban/topics > > > - the future of Lojban's leadership [9 Updates] > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/fe3b86a2b4615ad2 > - {se me} [3 Updates] > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/e00c54246936d185 > - criticism of lojban needed [1 Update] > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/c0be8b3b11c029e6 > > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >Topic: the future of Lojban's leadership >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/fe3b86a2b4615ad2 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D > >---------- 1 of 9 ---------- >From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" > >Date: Sep 09 01:30PM -0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/ff628554e24946a6 > >On 9/7/2014 5:45 PM, Alex Burka wrote: >> Dustin for doing so. I do think it will take rather longer than we >> perhaps thought when this thread began. > >> I still think that the software-development model is the way to go. > >We already used a software development model. That is where the=20 >"baseline" concept came from. The problem is that software needs to be > >properly documented, and normally you don't go changing it without=20 >documenting what you already have. The other problem is that the=20 >"development" is supposed to already be done. Long done. And for a lot > >of people, the idea that they might have to go to Microsoft Lojban 8.0=20 >from 7.0 is enough to make them throw up their hands in disgust and >turn=20 >away from the language. They might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in=20 >"Lojban XP", but they don't want to relearn anything. > >> Among other things, it lets wild experimentation coexist safely with >the >> carefully curated =E2=80=9Cmaster branch=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 I mean, this= is already happening >in >> the community, but it=E2=80=99s a mess and a hodgepodge of projects, > >That is what experimental language is like, and should be like.=20 >Someone=20 >else posted today on Buckminster Fuller's usages which are a form of=20 >experimental English. For anyone who did not know about those usages,=20 >they would be "a mess and a hodgepodge" > >> exactly >> because there=E2=80=99s no accepted process, and it doesn=E2=80=99t help= that people >who >> propose one tend to get shouted down. > >Because we still haven't documented the baseline "languageware". > >> Languages change when they are actively used. > >Not generally by fiat. Look how many approaches exist for English >third=20 >person pronouns which are gender-neutral. All are "changes" to >English,=20 >but none have really caught on. > >> this will just result in everyone leaving (which seems to put me in >> fundamental disagreement with those who think that if we change >> anything, then everyone will leave). > >This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of >people=20 >explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high. More=20 >importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of conlangs=20 >whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop fiddling with=20 >the language design. Those that have survived and spread have stopped=20 >being developed, and are simply USED. Adding computer terminology to=20 >Esperanto as it becomes needed isn't a "language change".=20 >Systematically changing the endings of gismu to fit some new schema is >a=20 >drastic change that would likely cause many to leave or schism. > >People might have tolerated running across some new word on an IRC=20 >channel and looking it up; we deal with learning new vocabulary all the > >time in natural language. But they don't like someone telling them >that=20 >the old way to do something is wrong, and there is a new and better >way. > >> But I also think there=E2=80=99s a middle >> ground. We can allow some changes (with strict review, li=E2=80=99a sai)= , >> without destroying the language. > >At some point, you have to stop allowing changes EXCEPT by *natural*=20 >language processes (which aren't so much "reviewed" as "documented >after=20 >the fact". > >> the one about documentation of experimental grammar being hard to >find): >> in my mind, there is no way Lojban can be "considered DONE as an >> engineering effort=E2=80=9D. > >Then we are fundamentally at odds. It MUST be "done" at some point.=20 >Engineering must stop, and we move to usage. > > Certainly the publication of the CLL and everything >> considered =E2=80=9Calmost done=E2=80=9D, but the mere existence of the = BPFK and the >ZG >> are confirmation that the final word (whatever that means when >applied >> to a living language, see above) has not been said. > >The intent of the BPFK was to finish the documentation of the language, > >making corrections to CLL as necessary. The ZG acceptance of xorlo as >a=20 >major bug-fix because the community felt that the original design COULD > >NOT be properly documented. > >> to deny that changes have happened and become accepted by large >portions >> of the community since the publication of the CLL: the BPFK >morphology. >> xorlo was adopted into the ZG. Nearly everyone uses dotside for >names. > >"Dotside" is not really an engineering change, but rather using one >rule=20 >(the dot-pause, which is allowed between any two words) to allow >another=20 >rule to be ignored. Indeed it has been accepted because the listener=20 >likely won't even notice that it is being used. And likely a dotside=20 >user will not have a problem with the speech of a non-dotside speaker,=20 >provided that the latter follows the pre-dotside rules. > >xorlo was proposed and discussed within the BPFK as a solution to=20 >problems in documenting the gadri. If the documentation had been=20 >finished earlier, there would have been no need for the ZG. (Probably=20 >true for dotside as well.) > >> Modern {ka} with {ce=E2=80=99u}. > >should be documented as part of the baseline. ce'u predates said >baseline. > > The experimental gismu {kibro} > >never heard of it. > > and cmavo >> {di=E2=80=99ai}. vu=E2=80=99o po=E2=80=99onai. > >vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that I=20 >remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back in the=20 >90s). I have no idea what di'ai is. That is the problem with=20 >experimental usages. They aren't documented, and people like me would=20 >have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it in text.=20 >Some=20 >might try to figure it out like Jabberwocky (but the coinages in=20 >Jabberwocky pretty much all correspond to brivla and not cmavo). > >I am least interested in getting bogged down >> in legalese and bylaws if such things turn out to obstruct the use of >> Lojban and encourage it to stagnate (which is what=E2=80=99s arguably >happened >> in the last decade). > >It hasn't prevented anyone from using the language as they see fit so=20 >far. You won't hear me complaining because you use "di'ai". I just=20 >won't understand you. If we're on IRC I can ask you what it means, but > >if it is in text, I will have no clue. > >The "stagnation" seems to me that people want to document and approve=20 >new stuff without documenting the older stuff. I don't see any easy >way=20 >to resolve this impasse, but if there is, it would require someone to=20 >write CLL sections covering new material to replace or add to the=20 >existing text. If someone were doing this and collecting it somewhere, > >AND the original baseline documentation was being finished, we could=20 >deal with it. We do need a new edition of CLL, probably next year, and > >the argument becomes what to put into it. Likely the decision will=20 >effectively be made by those that do the writing. > >> That being said, yes, I=E2=80=99d like to join the LLG. > >Noted. > >> that there=E2=80=99s a way to get there, but I don=E2=80=99t claim to ha= ve all the >> answers of course. I am glad that there will be a meeting soon, >because >> that=E2=80=99s at least potential progress. > >There is a meeting every year. But there hasn't been progress every=20 >year because most years, no one has any issues to bring up. The coming > >meeting looks like it will resemble those of 2002-2003 when Robin and=20 >others stepped in and took over. I stepped down as president, only=20 >resuming the job when Matt resigned in 2010 (and I'll probably step >down=20 >again gladly if I get the feeling that someone is capable and willing >to=20 >fulfill the organizational responsibilities of the President. And some > >day someone will have to take over the Virginia representative spot,=20 >which exists solely for legal reasons). > >lojbab > > >---------- 2 of 9 ---------- >From: And Rosta >Date: Sep 09 09:50PM +0100 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/ba1945ba71bf49f6 > >Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 09/09/2014 18:30: >> throw up their hands in disgust and turn away from the language. They >> might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in "Lojban XP", but they don't >> want to relearn anything. > >It seems to me you're setting up a largely false dichotomy. Most of >what remains to be done is to complete the design where it is >incomplete. So the choice is whether to do that explicitly or leave it >to usage. Not much relearning entailed by that. There is the additional >choice of whether to make simplifications that require a handful of >individuals to do some relearning now, for the benefit of making the >task for all future learners much simpler, but that is a separate >debate. > >> the time in natural language. But they don't like someone telling >> them that the old way to do something is wrong, and there is a new >> and better way. > >Are there still many that feel thus? I wonder if it's a myth that gets >perpetuated because you propagate it so insistently. > >In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline-compliant way; >cf how "le nu", "le ka", "le du'u" used to be default in usage. In old >and new usage (for new usage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observation), >logical scope of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many >people are going to want to preserve old ways that aren't >baseline-compliant or are rampantly logically ambiguous? > >> This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of >> people explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high. > >Not in the history of Lojban proper, of course, because changes haven't >been imposed from on-high. So all the folk leaving for the last 27 >years have been leaving for other reasons; disgruntlement at the >unfinished design and the political sclerosis that prevents its >completion must be the major reason why people leave Lojban, out of all >reasons that have to do with some sort of disaffection with Lojban. > >> More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of >> conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop >> fiddling with the language design. > >I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hundreds >of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped >fiddling with the language design. > >>> engineering effort=E2=80=9D. > >> Then we are fundamentally at odds. It MUST be "done" at some point. >> Engineering must stop, and we move to usage. > >Especially in the case of a language like Lojban, one expects that >there will always be a strong strand of prescriptivism, in areas where >usage deviates from the official design or from logic. Prescriptivism >is a form of engineering. It has a bad name in the domain of natlangs, >mostly because actual prescriptivists tend to be foolish, but to people >attracted to Lojban by its explicit definition and ostensible logical >basis, rational prescriptivism is likely to be welcome. > > >> vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that I >> remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back in >> the 90s). > >It was discussed back in the 90s, but is it in CLL? I can't find a way >to search CLL online (-- there must be one, but googling doesn't bring >it up). It's not in CLL Ch 13 where po'o is introduced. > >> I have no idea what di'ai is. That is the problem with >> experimental usages. They aren't documented, and people like me would >> have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it in text. > >I went to the humungous effort of looking kibro and di'ai up in >jbovlaste. To find jbovlaste, one googles "jbovlaste". Or, even >quicker, google "jbovlaste kibro" and you get the answer in one step. >For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste app >-- it's excellent! And it's dead easy to use even for those of us who >are weary at having to learn new technology. > >--And. > > >---------- 3 of 9 ---------- >From: Alex Burka >Date: Sep 09 05:43PM -0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/9426799e0d7040c > >Thanks, And, I agree with nearly all of what you said, though I may >write more later. One quick clarification, I really didn=E2=80=99t mean {v= u=E2=80=99o >po=E2=80=99onai} as another example of experimentalism =E2=80=94 just mean= t to say >=E2=80=9Cetc=E2=80=9D. Sorry for the sloppy jboglish. =20 > > >On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM, And Rosta wrote: > > > >---------- 4 of 9 ---------- >From: Gleki Arxokuna >Date: Sep 10 09:51AM +0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/7d422a026d49abf8 > >>> and better way. > >> Are there still many that feel thus? I wonder if it's a myth that >gets >> perpetuated because you propagate it so insistently. > >No, this is true. > > >> of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many people are >going >> to want to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or are >> rampantly logically ambiguous? > > >The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality to >facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which is a >defining >feature of lojban. > > > >> I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not >hundreds of >> conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling >with >> the language design. > >He won't. I can confirm his words. >I've got a lot of people from Russian group who immediately stopped >learning Lojban when they learnt that CLL was no longer valid. > >With regret I have to acknowledge that Lojbab's task of creating a >stable >language failed when the not well thought out change called "xorlo" >invalidated the refgram. May be it's still not too late to go back to >pre-xorlo >and formalize quantification problems so that they match CLL example as >close as possible. > >Another example is Quenya. When new Tolkien's stuff was published the >community shrinked fivefold. > >Yet another example is Loglan. > >That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to the >final destruction of the language as it happened to other conlangs. > > > >> To find jbovlaste, one googles "jbovlaste". Or, even quicker, google >> "jbovlaste kibro" and you get the answer in one step. For users of >handheld >> devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste app -- it's excellent! > > >Huh? > > > > >---------- 5 of 9 ---------- >From: And Rosta >Date: Sep 10 02:16PM +0100 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/b2bc7edffc4028a9 > >Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 06:51: > >> The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality >> to facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which is a >> defining feature of lojban. > >There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be >deemed correct: > >1. usage >2. official codification >3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency, >regularity, unambiguity, integrity > >& possibly a fourth: > >4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion) > >(4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban. > >All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob I hope >(because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What do you think >it is? > >At the time I ceased active involvement with Lojban I had come to the >view that that the community was wedded to 1>2>3 or 2>1>3 with >immutable 2, but now I see that there are currents of opinion -- much >stronger than ever in my time -- unwilling to accept either of those. >Surely the only foreseeable outcomes are that the ultraconservative >camp withers or that there is schism. > > >> He won't. I can confirm his words. I've got a lot of people from >> Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they >> learnt that CLL was no longer valid. > >Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers. > >I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of >{1|immutable2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first >place, such deviation from that ranking quenched their interest? > >> That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to >> the final destruction of the language as it happened to other >> conlangs. > >You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. You >seem to think that a language exists if and only if it has speakers in >our world. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do think >it's utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discussion if we use >the same set of terms with such fundamentally different and >incompatible senses. > >> For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android >jbovlaste app -- it's excellent! > >> Huh? > >There is a Google Play app maker called Vorgoron who made the app and >gave it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had >misled me into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other >apps, it seems likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you >know. > >--And. > > >---------- 6 of 9 ---------- >From: Gleki Arxokuna >Date: Sep 10 05:35PM +0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/a125f75a89fafc6b > > >> (4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban. > >> All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob I >hope >> (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What do you think >it is? > >For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage >although 4. defines 1. and partially 3. > > >>> Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they >>> learnt that CLL was no longer valid. > >> Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers. > >Usage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger (although i >preferred to >use "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang") > > >> I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of >> {1|immutable2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first >> place, such deviation from that ranking quenched their interest? > > >There is CLL which is the reference grammar. >When someone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the >language stops to exist. >This way Lojban loses one of its selling points: the most >complete/described human language ever. > >CLL is the first (and the best imo) book teaching Lojban. > >What others offer instead of CLL? Nothing. Just waiting for Robin to do >something instead of them. > > >>> the final destruction of the language as it happened to other >>> conlangs. > >> You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. > > >Destruction is exactly when you ignore or invalidate one thing and not >providing alternatives. >Those tinkerers (including xorlofiers back in 2003) threw CLL away and >thus >imo destroyed the original plan of a stable language and doomed the >language to the fate of Loglan. Only the lack of the third alternative >(a >new loglang) prevented this community from complete dying. > > > >> our world. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do >think it's >> utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discussion if we use >the same >> set of terms with such fundamentally different and incompatible >senses. > > >The existence of speakers doesn't matter. If you have selling points >you >will get speakers. >The second selling point is monoparsing. >But they removed the first selling point. > > >> it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had >misled me >> into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other apps, it >seems >> likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know. > > >Oh, I see. I just offered him to include a dictionary into their >distributions. I don't even remember who is the original author of that >dictionary. > > > > >---------- 7 of 9 ---------- >From: Alex Burka >Date: Sep 10 10:31AM -0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/27be3128c04ce756 > >Gleki, you=E2=80=99re not making any sense. In one breath we=E2=80=99re ho= lding a >bonfire and torching CLLs, while in the next we=E2=80=99re sitting twiddli= ng >our thumbs =E2=80=9Cwaiting for Robin to do something=E2=80=9D. Obviously,= neither is >true. And Lojban is still here, in contradiction to what you keep >saying, though we disagree on the reasons why it languishes. I wish we >could have this argument without hurling insults. > >mu=E2=80=99o mi=E2=80=99e la durka =20 > > >On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > >---------- 8 of 9 ---------- >From: Alex Burka >Date: Sep 10 10:32AM -0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/f47f5a1398ac66f9 > >I think it=E2=80=99s 3>1>2 for me, although I=E2=80=99m not exactly sure o= f the >distinction you=E2=80=99re drawing between =E2=80=9Cusage=E2=80=9D and =E2= =80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D. And to keep >3 above 1, you need 2 to be able to slowly adapt to 1/4=E2=80=A6 so it=E2= =80=99s >intertwined. =20 > >mu=E2=80=99o mi=E2=80=99e la durka =20 > > >On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > > >---------- 9 of 9 ---------- >From: Gleki Arxokuna >Date: Sep 10 06:34PM +0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/73ee044565adecfa > >> is still here, in contradiction to what you keep saying, though we >disagree >> on the reasons why it languishes. I wish we could have this argument >> without hurling insults. > >1. You don't provide any alternative. Where is your amended CLL? There >isn't one. Thus you are waiting for someone, what else can I assume? > >Yes, torching CLLs and doing nothing constructive. > >2. In what form does Lojban exist? It exists despite these >invalidations of >CLL and continues to avert other people from contributing just because >of >xorlo and other changes. > > > > > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >Topic: {se me} >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/e00c54246936d185 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D > >---------- 1 of 3 ---------- >From: Gleki Arxokuna >Date: Sep 09 09:23PM +0400 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/e942daa679fc47a6 > >or just move {me} to BRIVLA/GOhA whatever you call it. > > > >---------- 2 of 3 ---------- >From: "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" >Date: Sep 09 06:20PM -0300 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/cf043fea4dfa3ec0 > >> whatever), this doesn't look like a very appealing solution for such >a >> basic and frequent predicate, as the resulting lexeme would be likely >at >> least four syllables long. > >"se zei me" would only be three syllables... > >Another possibility would be making an experimental gismu or a zi'evla. >> clash with any official gismu. ("menre" mostly comes etymologically >from >> the Spanish "entre", the Hindi "mem/men", the English "among" and the >> Russian "sredi".) > >I'm not against it. "se menre" is not shorter than "se zei me", but it >may >be clearer. > >mu'o mi'e xorxes > > >---------- 3 of 3 ---------- >From: "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" >Date: Sep 09 06:21PM -0300 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/2caa6c4e14951760 > >On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Gleki Arxokuna > >wrote: > >> or just move {me} to BRIVLA/GOhA whatever you call it. > >One problem with that is that then you would need a lot of "be" that >are >not needed now. > >mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >Topic: criticism of lojban needed >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/c0be8b3b11c029e6 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D > >---------- 1 of 1 ---------- >From: Philip Newton >Date: Sep 09 10:06PM +0200 >Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/41f84ea4bf90b22 > >> "dl" is a permitted initial in Russian; I don't know for sure about >"tl". > >It is also permitted, e.g. "tlenie" (decay). > >mu'o mi'e .filip. > > > > > > >-- >You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this >group. You can change your settings on the group membership page:=20 >https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=3Ddigest&utm_medium=3Demail/#!= forum/lojban/join >. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------O7RCQI1QL5QEHT2XWMLB6JOKY48MI8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In sorry, but I can't get my new email program= to reply specifying a topic...

State of the language...

I can certainly state that people drop out of lojban learning and even foll= owing because the language isn't stable enough. The entire local group = quit. It will never be perfect because no language is, and I believe it sti= ll needs the starting point specified from which changes can evolve slowly.=

I'm the only one from this group who's even following it now, and = the arguments about the same exact issue of if lojban needs a baseline is g= etting very old. I also know people who still feel there is too much flux t= o learn lojban. Adding gismu, as I've seen discussed, is not minor. Eve= rything can be expressed as is (fu'ivla, etc) and over decades and long= er of usage these may shorten to gismu, but the changes don't have to h= appen immediately. Change that is too quick makes the language harder to le= arn and the speaker base grow more slowly. This is what a baseline was supp= osed to prevent.

I'm also seeing proposals based on how a single language expresses some= thing which is counter to lojban, in my opinion. This is still malglico, or= mal-whatever.

Finally, remember that even this language has speakers, learners, and poten= tial learners who aren't online, who can't participate in the discu= ssions of "improvements", and who want to know the language isn&#= 39;t changing underneath them.

.karis

On September 10, 2014 1:18:30 PM E= DT, lojban@googlegroups.com wrote:
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =
lojban@googlegroups.com Google Groups
=20
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20
"Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojb= ab@lojban.org>: Sep 09 01:30PM -0400

On 9/7/2014 5:45 PM, Alex Burka wrote:
> Dustin for doing so. I do think it will take rather longer than we
> perhaps thought when this thread began.
 
> I still think that the software-development model is the way to go.  
We already used a software development model. That is where the
"baseline" concept came from. The problem is that software needs= to be
properly documented, and normally you don't go changing it without
documenting what you already have. The other problem is that the
"development" is supposed to already be done. Long done. And for= a lot
of people, the idea that they might have to go to Microsoft Lojban 8.0
from 7.0 is enough to make them throw up their hands in disgust and turn away from the language. They might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in
"Lojban XP", but they don't want to relearn anything.
 
> Among other things, it lets wild experimentation coexist safely with t= he
> carefully curated =E2=80=9Cmaster branch=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 I mean, th= is is already happening in
> the community, but it=E2=80=99s a mess and a hodgepodge of projects,  
That is what experimental language is like, and should be like. Someone else posted today on Buckminster Fuller's usages which are a form of experimental English. For anyone who did not know about those usages,
they would be "a mess and a hodgepodge"
 
> exactly
> because there=E2=80=99s no accepted process, and it doesn=E2=80=99t he= lp that people who
> propose one tend to get shouted down.
 
Because we still haven't documented the baseline "languageware&quo= t;.
 
> Languages change when they are actively used.
 
Not generally by fiat. Look how many approaches exist for English third person pronouns which are gender-neutral. All are "changes" to E= nglish,
but none have really caught on.
 
> this will just result in everyone leaving (which seems to put me in > fundamental disagreement with those who think that if we change
> anything, then everyone will leave).
 
This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of people explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high. More
importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of conlangs
whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop fiddling with <= br /> the language design. Those that have survived and spread have stopped
being developed, and are simply USED. Adding computer terminology to
Esperanto as it becomes needed isn't a "language change". Systematically changing the endings of gismu to fit some new schema is a drastic change that would likely cause many to leave or schism.
 
People might have tolerated running across some new word on an IRC
channel and looking it up; we deal with learning new vocabulary all the time in natural language. But they don't like someone telling them tha= t
the old way to do something is wrong, and there is a new and better way.  
> But I also think there=E2=80=99s a middle
> ground. We can allow some changes (with strict review, li=E2=80=99a sa= i),
> without destroying the language.
 
At some point, you have to stop allowing changes EXCEPT by *natural*
language processes (which aren't so much "reviewed" as "= documented after
the fact".
 
> the one about documentation of experimental grammar being hard to find= ):
> in my mind, there is no way Lojban can be "considered DONE as an<= br /> > engineering effort=E2=80=9D.
 
Then we are fundamentally at odds. It MUST be "done" at some poi= nt.
Engineering must stop, and we move to usage.
 
Certainly the publication of the CLL and everything
> considered =E2=80=9Calmost done=E2=80=9D, but the mere existence of th= e BPFK and the ZG
> are confirmation that the final word (whatever that means when applied=
> to a living language, see above) has not been said.
 
The intent of the BPFK was to finish the documentation of the language, making corrections to CLL as necessary. The ZG acceptance of xorlo as a major bug-fix because the community felt that the original design COULD NOT be properly documented.
 
> to deny that changes have happened and become accepted by large portio= ns
> of the community since the publication of the CLL: the BPFK morphology= .
> xorlo was adopted into the ZG. Nearly everyone uses dotside for names.=
 
"Dotside" is not really an engineering change, but rather using o= ne rule
(the dot-pause, which is allowed between any two words) to allow another rule to be ignored. Indeed it has been accepted because the listener
likely won't even notice that it is being used. And likely a dotside <= br /> user will not have a problem with the speech of a non-dotside speaker,
provided that the latter follows the pre-dotside rules.
 
xorlo was proposed and discussed within the BPFK as a solution to
problems in documenting the gadri. If the documentation had been
finished earlier, there would have been no need for the ZG. (Probably
true for dotside as well.)
 
> Modern {ka} with {ce=E2=80=99u}.
 
should be documented as part of the baseline. ce'u predates said basel= ine.
 
The experimental gismu {kibro}
 
never heard of it.
 
and cmavo
> {di=E2=80=99ai}. vu=E2=80=99o po=E2=80=99onai.
 
vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that I remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back in the
90s). I have no idea what di'ai is. That is the problem with
experimental usages. They aren't documented, and people like me would =
have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it in text. Some might try to figure it out like Jabberwocky (but the coinages in
Jabberwocky pretty much all correspond to brivla and not cmavo).
 
I am least interested in getting bogged down
> in legalese and bylaws if such things turn out to obstruct the use of<= br /> > Lojban and encourage it to stagnate (which is what=E2=80=99s arguably = happened
> in the last decade).
 
It hasn't prevented anyone from using the language as they see fit so <= br /> far. You won't hear me complaining because you use "di'ai&quo= t;. I just
won't understand you. If we're on IRC I can ask you what it means,= but
if it is in text, I will have no clue.
 
The "stagnation" seems to me that people want to document and app= rove
new stuff without documenting the older stuff. I don't see any easy wa= y
to resolve this impasse, but if there is, it would require someone to
write CLL sections covering new material to replace or add to the
existing text. If someone were doing this and collecting it somewhere, AND the original baseline documentation was being finished, we could
deal with it. We do need a new edition of CLL, probably next year, and the argument becomes what to put into it. Likely the decision will
effectively be made by those that do the writing.
 
> That being said, yes, I=E2=80=99d like to join the LLG.
 
Noted.
 
> that there=E2=80=99s a way to get there, but I don=E2=80=99t claim to = have all the
> answers of course. I am glad that there will be a meeting soon, becaus= e
> that=E2=80=99s at least potential progress.
 
There is a meeting every year. But there hasn't been progress every year because most years, no one has any issues to bring up. The coming meeting looks like it will resemble those of 2002-2003 when Robin and
others stepped in and took over. I stepped down as president, only
resuming the job when Matt resigned in 2010 (and I'll probably step dow= n
again gladly if I get the feeling that someone is capable and willing to fulfill the organizational responsibilities of the President. And some day someone will have to take over the Virginia representative spot,
which exists solely for legal reasons).
 
lojbab
And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>: Sep 09 09:50PM +0100

Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 09/09/2014 18:30:<= br /> > throw up their hands in disgust and turn away from the language. They<= br /> > might accept small tweaks to fix bugs in "Lojban XP", but th= ey don't
> want to relearn anything.
 
It seems to me you're setting up a largely false dichotomy. Most of wha= t remains to be done is to complete the design where it is incomplete. So t= he choice is whether to do that explicitly or leave it to usage. Not much r= elearning entailed by that. There is the additional choice of whether to ma= ke simplifications that require a handful of individuals to do some relearn= ing now, for the benefit of making the task for all future learners much si= mpler, but that is a separate debate.
 
> the time in natural language. But they don't like someone telling<= br /> > them that the old way to do something is wrong, and there is a new
> and better way.
 
Are there still many that feel thus? I wonder if it's a myth that gets = perpetuated because you propagate it so insistently.
 
In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline-complian= t way; cf how "le nu", "le ka", "le du'u"= used to be default in usage. In old and new usage (for new usage, I'm = relying on Selpa'i's observation), logical scope of syntactic claus= emates is generally ambiguous. How many people are going to want to preserv= e old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or are rampantly logically am= biguous?
 
> This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of
> people explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high.
 
Not in the history of Lojban proper, of course, because changes haven't= been imposed from on-high. So all the folk leaving for the last 27 years h= ave been leaving for other reasons; disgruntlement at the unfinished design= and the political sclerosis that prevents its completion must be the major= reason why people leave Lojban, out of all reasons that have to do with so= me sort of disaffection with Lojban.
 
> More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of
> conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop > fiddling with the language design.
 
I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hundreds = of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling wi= th the language design.
 
>> engineering effort=E2=80=9D.
 
> Then we are fundamentally at odds. It MUST be "done" at some= point.
> Engineering must stop, and we move to usage.
 
Especially in the case of a language like Lojban, one expects that there wi= ll always be a strong strand of prescriptivism, in areas where usage deviat= es from the official design or from logic. Prescriptivism is a form of engi= neering. It has a bad name in the domain of natlangs, mostly because actual= prescriptivists tend to be foolish, but to people attracted to Lojban by i= ts explicit definition and ostensible logical basis, rational prescriptivis= m is likely to be welcome.
 
 
> vu'o and po'onai should both be part of the baseline (not that= I
> remember what the latter means; I am sure it was discussed back in
> the 90s).
 
It was discussed back in the 90s, but is it in CLL? I can't find a way = to search CLL online (-- there must be one, but googling doesn't bring = it up). It's not in CLL Ch 13 where po'o is introduced.
 
> I have no idea what di'ai is. That is the problem with
> experimental usages. They aren't documented, and people like me wo= uld
> have no idea what to do with the word if we run across it in text.
 
I went to the humungous effort of looking kibro and di'ai up in jbovlas= te. To find jbovlaste, one googles "jbovlaste". Or, even quicker,= google "jbovlaste kibro" and you get the answer in one step. For= users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste app -- it&#= 39;s excellent! And it's dead easy to use even for those of us who are = weary at having to learn new technology.
 
--And.
Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>: Sep 09 05:43PM -0400

Thanks, And, I agree with nearly all of what you said, though I may= write more later. One quick clarification, I really didn=E2=80=99t mean {v= u=E2=80=99o po=E2=80=99onai} as another example of experimentalism =E2=80= =94 just meant to say =E2=80=9Cetc=E2=80=9D. Sorry for the sloppy jboglish.=
 
 
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM, And Rosta wrote:
 
Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>: Sep 10 09:51AM= +0400

>> and better way.
 
> Are there still many that feel thus? I wonder if it's a myth that = gets
> perpetuated because you propagate it so insistently.
 
No, this is true.
 
 
> of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many people are g= oing
> to want to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or are=
> rampantly logically ambiguous?
 
 
The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality to
facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which is a defi= ning
feature of lojban.
 
 
 
> I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hund= reds of
> conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling = with
> the language design.
 
He won't. I can confirm his words.
I've got a lot of people from Russian group who immediately stopped
learning Lojban when they learnt that CLL was no longer valid.
 
With regret I have to acknowledge that Lojbab's task of creating a stab= le
language failed when the not well thought out change called "xorlo&quo= t;
invalidated the refgram. May be it's still not too late to go back to pre-xorlo
and formalize quantification problems so that they match CLL example as
close as possible.
 
Another example is Quenya. When new Tolkien's stuff was published the community shrinked fivefold.
 
Yet another example is Loglan.
 
That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to the<= br /> final destruction of the language as it happened to other conlangs.
 
 
 
> To find jbovlaste, one googles "jbovlaste". Or, even quicker= , google
> "jbovlaste kibro" and you get the answer in one step. For us= ers of handheld
> devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste app -- it's excellent= !
 
 
Huh?
 
 
And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>: Sep 10 02:16PM +0100

Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 06:51:
 
> The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality > to facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which i= s a
> defining feature of lojban.
 
There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be deem= ed correct:
 
1. usage
2. official codification
3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency, reg= ularity, unambiguity, integrity
 
& possibly a fourth:
 
4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion)
 
(4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban.
 
All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob = I hope (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. Wh= at do you think it is?
 
At the time I ceased active involvement with Lojban I had come to the view = that that the community was wedded to 1>2>3 or 2>1>3 with immut= able 2, but now I see that there are currents of opinion -- much stronger t= han ever in my time -- unwilling to accept either of those. Surely the only= foreseeable outcomes are that the ultraconservative camp withers or that t= here is schism.
 
 
> He won't. I can confirm his words. I've got a lot of people fr= om
> Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they
> learnt that CLL was no longer valid.
 
Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers.
 
I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of {1|immu= table2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first place, su= ch deviation from that ranking quenched their interest?
 
> That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to=
> the final destruction of the language as it happened to other
> conlangs.
 
You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. You seem= to think that a language exists if and only if it has speakers in our worl= d. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do think it's= utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discussion if we use the= same set of terms with such fundamentally different and incompatible sense= s.
 
> For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste= app -- it's excellent!
 
> Huh?
 
There is a Google Play app maker called Vorgoron who made the app and gave = it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had m= isled me into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other a= pps, it seems likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know.=
 
--And.
Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>: Sep 10 05:35PM= +0400


> (4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban.
 
> All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For= Bob I hope
> (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What= do you think it is?
 
For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usa= ge
although 4. defines 1. and partially 3.
 
 
>> Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they >> learnt that CLL was no longer valid.
 
> Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers.
 
Usage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger (although i preferred to=
use "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang")
 
 
> I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of > {1|immutable2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the fir= st
> place, such deviation from that ranking quenched their interest?
 
 
There is CLL which is the reference grammar.
When someone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the
language stops to exist.
This way Lojban loses one of its selling points: the most
complete/described human language ever.
 
CLL is the first (and the best imo) book teaching Lojban.
 
What others offer instead of CLL? Nothing. Just waiting for Robin to do
something instead of them.
 
 
>> the final destruction of the language as it happened to other
>> conlangs.
 
> You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is.
 
 
Destruction is exactly when you ignore or invalidate one thing and not
providing alternatives.
Those tinkerers (including xorlofiers back in 2003) threw CLL away and thus=
imo destroyed the original plan of a stable language and doomed the
language to the fate of Loglan. Only the lack of the third alternative (a new loglang) prevented this community from complete dying.
 
 
 
> our world. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do t= hink it's
> utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discussion if we use= the same
> set of terms with such fundamentally different and incompatible senses= .
 
 
The existence of speakers doesn't matter. If you have selling points yo= u
will get speakers.
The second selling point is monoparsing.
But they removed the first selling point.
 
 
> it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which = had misled me
> into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other apps,= it seems
> likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know.
 
 
Oh, I see. I just offered him to include a dictionary into their
distributions. I don't even remember who is the original author of that=
dictionary.
 
 
Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>: Sep 10 10:31AM -0400

Gleki, you=E2=80=99re not making any sense. In one breath we=E2=80= =99re holding a bonfire and torching CLLs, while in the next we=E2=80=99re = sitting twiddling our thumbs =E2=80=9Cwaiting for Robin to do something=E2= =80=9D. Obviously, neither is true. And Lojban is still here, in contradict= ion to what you keep saying, though we disagree on the reasons why it langu= ishes. I wish we could have this argument without hurling insults.
 
mu=E2=80=99o mi=E2=80=99e la durka
 
 
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
 
Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>: Sep 10 10:32AM -0400

I think it=E2=80=99s 3>1>2 for me, although I=E2=80=99m not e= xactly sure of the distinction you=E2=80=99re drawing between =E2=80=9Cusag= e=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D. And to keep 3 above 1, you need= 2 to be able to slowly adapt to 1/4=E2=80=A6 so it=E2=80=99s intertwined. =
 
mu=E2=80=99o mi=E2=80=99e la durka
 
 
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote:
 
Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>: Sep 10 06:34PM= +0400

> is still here, in contradiction to what you keep saying, thoug= h we disagree
> on the reasons why it languishes. I wish we could have this argument > without hurling insults.
 
1. You don't provide any alternative. Where is your amended CLL? There<= br /> isn't one. Thus you are waiting for someone, what else can I assume?  
Yes, torching CLLs and doing nothing constructive.
 
2. In what form does Lojban exist? It exists despite these invalidations of=
CLL and continues to avert other people from contributing just because of xorlo and other changes.
 
 
=20
=20 {se me} =20
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20
Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>: Sep 09 09:23PM= +0400

or just move {me} to BRIVLA/GOhA whatever you call it.
 
"Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com>: Sep= 09 06:20PM -0300

> whatever), this doesn't look like a very appealing solutio= n for such a
> basic and frequent predicate, as the resulting lexeme would be likely = at
> least four syllables long.
 
"se zei me" would only be three syllables...
 
Another possibility would be making an experimental gismu or a zi'evla.=
> clash with any official gismu. ("menre" mostly comes etymolo= gically from
> the Spanish "entre", the Hindi "mem/men", the Engl= ish "among" and the
> Russian "sredi".)
 
I'm not against it. "se menre" is not shorter than "se z= ei me", but it may
be clearer.
 
mu'o mi'e xorxes
"Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com>: Sep= 09 06:21PM -0300

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name= @gmail.com>
wrote:
 
> or just move {me} to BRIVLA/GOhA whatever you call it.
 
One problem with that is that then you would need a lot of "be" t= hat are
not needed now.
 
mu'o mi'e xorxes
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>: Sep 09 10:06PM +02= 00

> "dl" is a permitted initial in Russian; I don't = know for sure about "tl".
 
It is also permitted, e.g. "tlenie" (decay).
 
mu'o mi'e .filip.
=20 =20 =20 =20
=20 You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for thi= s group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send= an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------O7RCQI1QL5QEHT2XWMLB6JOKY48MI8--