Received: from mail-wg0-f64.google.com ([74.125.82.64]:46295) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XS6He-00059d-B2 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:51 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f64.google.com with SMTP id y10sf615499wgg.19 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :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; bh=AiyNVGVjHdAsQkq2a9zjsZgGrggkCRwJvC0gdhEjuJY=; b=Wuu8ooAvo3GugVpxDjD0ECVKQaKu/bGYEHr3ShKAWUuMNstAJyz469H29Femi7C58w r6hZ9d3vspl6oLy7Rblno6irulVP26U6L3ydRmXz33QmOEkqQAIP9fAaM67V+V7V8E2v D7wSojhsuc2QYRkvAAbSKifvKTthWdzoNsbk6yVtugKHsSJo1+P31Q9Sur1zenXY5eF0 VVmFhwMnzMaBOFH6eII7uh+CHEWB8+5Dhs8d+qP2TRIMbyrgQYLt9cGr4scko4aT8q0X vVnJd2GSQRs/phM4v5d8w9c2F14cwicKGEGAVGdksqFDRRg3bba5ieW15p9muSL7rAKk eDDQ== X-Received: by 10.153.11.171 with SMTP id ej11mr16749lad.18.1410449247947; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.120.227 with SMTP id lf3ls80372lab.101.gmail; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.146.97 with SMTP id tb1mr82283lbb.20.1410449246472; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10si111713wif.1.2014.09.11.08.27.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a; Received: by mail-we0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u57so7082212wes.15 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.203.8 with SMTP id km8mr2382730wjc.51.1410449246375; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.89.193 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5411A85E.30604@gmail.com> References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com> <54104F32.6090308@gmail.com> <8D12D3A73AA44E8A8C25AEA15736F517@gmail.com> <5411A85E.30604@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:27:26 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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=047d7bae47e64dd7520502cbce2c X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed --047d7bae47e64dd7520502cbce2c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-11 17:49 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > > On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> >> > Alex Burka, On 10/09/2014 15:32: > >> I think it's 3>1>2 for me, although I'm not exactly sure of the >> distinction you're drawing between "usage" and "consensus". And to >> keep 3 above 1, you need 2 to be able to slowly adapt to 1/4... so it's >> intertwined. >> > > I meant (4) as a consensus of opinion that is independent of usage, an > opinion about how people ought to say stuff but not necessarily about how > they actually do say stuff. You could say 4 is an uncodified body of lore. > > Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 14:35:> > >> For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage >> although 4. defines 1. and partially 3. >> > > Okay. I can square that with some of what you say. But you also said that > what is codified should be based on usage -- which surely conflicts with > 3>4>1. CLL was based on usage and logic. So this step is finished. The ideal situation is if CLL has only additions to the language and backward compatible changes. And you also decried changes to the codification (because it causes some > people to abandon the language) yet also criticized the adoption of xorlo > on the apparent grounds that it has not been codified (in a new reference > grammar), implying that were it codified, you would not decry it. > People who are trying to learn Lojban are faced at "no up to date reference grammar" situation. They have nowhere to learn from. And for sure they are not going to join IRC just to listen to somebody. Why should they trust IRC-ers? Who are they for newcomers? > > > 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Usage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger (although i >> preferred to use "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang") >> > > Yes, I agree that is what 'conlanger means'. I thought you had meant > "[Bob] won't [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]" but because you didn't really substantiate that and > instead talked about conlang users, I thought maybe you had misread > "conlangers" for "conlangs". > > But I think I see now what you meant. You cited a diminution in the use of > Quenya in response to new information emerging about the diachrony of its > invention, so I infer that you mean that many conlangs -- dozens if not > hundreds -- if published and never publicly revised would attract users, > regardless of whether their creator wished or intended that to happen. Not only hundreds of conlangs but even hundreds of natlangs can't get attraction. People learning Sumerian (or similar natlangs) represent similar tiny closed communities. History proves that this is generally not the case; only exceptionally does > a published conlang attract users, even when the published codification > never alters. But Bob and implicitly you seem also to be saying that > failure to attract users constitutes some kind of absolute failure as a > language. The situation with Lojban is that people start saying that CLL is wrong. Nobody can say that of Sumerian inscriptions. Of course, CLL is wrong in the light of decisions in 2003. We have an internal conflict. It might have been better if CLL never existed. But the reality is that one thing contradicts another thing. We have to face it. Now this thread is called "the future of Lojban leadership". I can see only one person dealing with most pressing issues of Lojban. 1. This is Robin and this is his CLL, version >1.0. That's why he is the only person whom I respect and whom I see as a current leader doing something valuable AT THIS MOMENT (other people did valuable in past or in future). Other pressing issues are: 2. a dictionary without cryptic definitions and with examples showing usage for every place. 3. an up to date tutorial presenting Lojban as a spoken language. ... 7. an up to date tutorial presenting Lojban as a programming/logical language. etc. Another thing worth mentioning are Robin's jbocifnu. Thus he is again a leader in my view but from another orthogonal viewpoint just because of the simple fact of jbocifnu's existence. Other issues like Android dictionary apps, a better wiki, a better online live dictionary (jbovlaste 2.0) are of course important but one can learn the language even without those. -- 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 email 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. --047d7bae47e64dd7520502cbce2c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-11 17:49 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote:
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?

Alex Burka, On 10/09/2014 15:32:
I think it's 3>1>2 for me, although I'm not exactly sure of t= he
distinction you're drawing between "usage" and "consensu= s". And to
 keep 3 above 1, you need 2 to be able to slowly adapt to 1/4... so it's=
intertwined.

I meant (4) as a consensus of opinion that is independent of usage, an opin= ion about how people ought to say stuff but not necessarily about how they = actually do say stuff. You could say 4 is an uncodified body of lore.

Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 14:35:>
For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usa= ge
although 4. defines 1. and partially 3.

 Okay. I can square that with some of what you say. But you also said that w= hat is codified should be based on usage -- which surely conflicts with 3&g= t;4>1.

CLL was based on usage and logic.= So this step is finished.
The ideal situation is if CLL has only= additions to the language and backward compatible changes.

<= /div>
And you also decried changes to the codification (be= cause it causes some people to abandon the language) yet also criticized th= e adoption of xorlo on the apparent grounds that it has not been codified (= in a new reference grammar), implying that were it codified, you would not = decry it.

People who are trying to lear= n Lojban are faced at "no up to date reference grammar" situation= . They have nowhere to learn from.
And for sure they are not goin= g to join IRC just to listen to somebody. Why should they trust IRC-ers? Wh= o are they for newcomers?

=C2=A0


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0More importan= tly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0conlangs whos= e usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fiddling with= the language design.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I think you'd be hard-p= ressed to identify these dozens if not hundreds of conlangs whose usage wou= ld have spread if people had stopped fiddling with the language design.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 He won't. I can confirm his words. I've= got a lot of people from
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Russian group who immediately stopped learning = Lojban when they
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 learnt that CLL was no longer valid.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 conla= ng")

Yes, I agree that is what 'conlanger means'. I thought you had mean= t "[Bob] won't [be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hu= ndreds of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fidd= ling with the language design]" but because you didn't really subs= tantiate that and instead talked about conlang users, I thought maybe you h= ad misread "conlangers" for "conlangs".

But I think I see now what you meant. You cited a diminution in the use of = Quenya in response to new information emerging about the diachrony of its i= nvention, so I infer that you mean that many conlangs -- dozens if not hund= reds -- if published and never publicly revised would attract users, regard= less of whether their creator wished or intended that to happen.

Not only hundreds of conlangs but even hundreds of na= tlangs can't get attraction.
People learning Sumerian (or sim= ilar natlangs) represent similar tiny closed communities.

History proves that this is generally not the case; on= ly exceptionally does a published conlang attract users, even when the publ= ished codification never alters. But Bob and implicitly you seem also to be= saying that failure to attract users constitutes some kind of absolute fai= lure as a language.

The situation with Lojb= an is that people start saying that CLL is wrong. Nobody can say that of Su= merian inscriptions.
Of course, CLL is wrong in the light of deci= sions in 2003.
We have an internal conflict.
It might h= ave been better if CLL never existed.
But the reality is that one= thing contradicts another thing.
We have to face it.
N= ow this thread is called "the future of Lojban leadership".
=

I can see only one person dealing with most pressing is= sues of Lojban.
1. This is Robin and this is his CLL, version= >1.0.
That's why he is the only person whom I respect and= whom I see as a current leader doing something valuable AT THIS MOMENT (ot= her people did valuable in past or in future).

Oth= er pressing issues are:
2. a dictionary without cryptic definitio= ns and with examples showing usage for every place.
3. an up to d= ate tutorial presenting Lojban as a spoken language.
...
7.=C2=A0an up to date tutorial presenting Lojban as a programming/logical= language.
etc.

Another thing worth ment= ioning are Robin's jbocifnu. Thus he is again a leader in my view but f= rom another orthogonal viewpoint just because of the simple fact of jbocifn= u's existence.

Other issues like Android dicti= onary apps, a better wiki, a better online live dictionary (jbovlaste 2.0) = are of course important but one can learn the language even without those.<= /div>

--
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.
--047d7bae47e64dd7520502cbce2c--