Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <b7dbd33d-3ebd-48eb-b45e-6e90d4f59491@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <541714B1.9080300@gmail.com>
References: <e0b23cf5-5a67-4a9b-8db0-7d310eb4116e@googlegroups.com>
 <541714B1.9080300@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_612_2056974172.1410805361062"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_612_2056974172.1410805361062
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Monday, September 15, 2014 12:32:38 PM UTC-4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> Would this be an initiative to complete the Lojban design, much as Lojban 
> itself was an initiative to bring Loglan into a stable and public domain 
> form? Or would it be an initiative to create the best possible loglang? 
> These would be completely different initiatives but to each initiative some 
> bits of your message seem to pertain. 
>

Something in between. On the one hand we're not starting out with Lojban 
(or Loglan) as the mainline language, but instead creating a synthesis, 
while also reconsidering the choices made by these languages at each step 
in the process. Although it will likely differ in many respects, it is 
still very much an child of Loglan/Lojban, not an attempt to create an 
wholly new logical language.
 

>
> If it's an initiative to complete the Lojban design, probably what's 
> required is someone to document the completions that xorxes and selpa'i 
> would recommend -- maybe an informal document for others to check over the 
> recommendations, and then, if one were wanted, a formal CLL-like document. 
> It seems a shame to declare a fork, and rename the language, before forking 
> and renaming has been shown to really be necessary. 
>
>
I don't see how a fork can be avoided. I think it's become very clear that 
Lojban, pretty much as it is presently documented, is how the language is 
going to stay. The persons in charge give some service to change by "usage" 
and potential consideration of proposals after full documentation of the 
current language is complete. But how many decades are we to wait for that 
to happen? And can it actually ever be complete? And doesn't the whole 
notion of "completion" work against the notion of change? 

Documenting the completions that xorxes and selpa'i would recommend is a 
good idea, but it's clear to me it would not change much here. I'd like to 
see these proposals posted to the Logla issues board where they will be 
definitely have an effect.

Besides, starting a new project also allows us to take a step back and 
reconsider things that would simply not be possible otherwise.

If it's an initiative to create the best possible loglang, I suggest 
> initiating discussion on the Engelang list (still on Yahoogroups). My views 
> on loglangs, which would be better discussed on Engelang than here, are 
> that an obstacle to progress is that nobody has discovered a good enough 
> design, and the solution to this, if one exists at all, is to discuss the 
> problems and slowly turn them over in our minds, as with any not very 
> tractable problem; it's not a problem that can be solved just by people 
> rolling up their sleeves and trying to get stuff done. But the design is 
> modularizable, and some modules, such as the list of keyest predicates, 
> could be worked on separately. Slightly better documentation of the state 
> of the art, e.g. Xorban, would be nice, too. 
>
>
It is a project to create a better human language that is very "loglang". 
But not a project to create a better "loglan" for the sake of logicians. I 
hope that makes sense. We will do are best to take as much as we can into 
consideration and go from there. But it's not a issue of letting the 
"perfect be then enemy of the good". We'll take the good.

I will bring it up on Engelang too. Thanks.

-- 
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.

------=_Part_612_2056974172.1410805361062
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br>On Monday, September 15, 2014 12:32:38 PM UTC-4, And R=
osta wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left=
: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Would this be an in=
itiative to complete the Lojban design, much as Lojban itself was an initia=
tive to bring Loglan into a stable and public domain form? Or would it be a=
n initiative to create the best possible loglang? These would be completely=
 different initiatives but to each initiative some bits of your message see=
m to pertain.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Something in between. On the one hand =
we're not starting out with Lojban (or Loglan) as the mainline language, bu=
t instead creating a synthesis, while also reconsidering the choices made b=
y these languages at each step in the process. Although it will likely diff=
er in many respects, it is still very much an child of Loglan/Lojban, not a=
n attempt to create an wholly new logical language.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord=
er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>If it's an initiative to complete the Lojban design, probably what's re=
quired is someone to document the completions that xorxes and selpa'i would=
 recommend -- maybe an informal document for others to check over the recom=
mendations, and then, if one were wanted, a formal CLL-like document. It se=
ems a shame to declare a fork, and rename the language, before forking and =
renaming has been shown to really be necessary.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see how a fork can be avoided.=
 I think it's become very clear that Lojban, pretty much as it is presently=
 documented, is how the language is going to stay. The persons in charge gi=
ve some service to change by "usage" and potential consideration of proposa=
ls after full documentation of the current language is complete. But how ma=
ny decades are we to wait for that to happen? And can it actually ever be c=
omplete? And doesn't the whole notion of "completion" work against the noti=
on of change?&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Documenting the completions th=
at xorxes and selpa'i would recommend is a good idea, but it's clear to me =
it would not change much here. I'd like to see these proposals posted to th=
e Logla issues board where they will be definitely have an effect.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Besides, starting a new project also allows us to take a s=
tep back and reconsider things that would simply not be possible otherwise.=
</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;m=
argin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">If it's a=
n initiative to create the best possible loglang, I suggest initiating disc=
ussion on the Engelang list (still on Yahoogroups). My views on loglangs, w=
hich would be better discussed on Engelang than here, are that an obstacle =
to progress is that nobody has discovered a good enough design, and the sol=
ution to this, if one exists at all, is to discuss the problems and slowly =
turn them over in our minds, as with any not very tractable problem; it's n=
ot a problem that can be solved just by people rolling up their sleeves and=
 trying to get stuff done. But the design is modularizable, and some module=
s, such as the list of keyest predicates, could be worked on separately. Sl=
ightly better documentation of the state of the art, e.g. Xorban, would be =
nice, too.
<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is a project to create a better=
 human language that is very "loglang". But not a project to create a bette=
r "loglan" for the sake of logicians. I hope that makes sense. We will do a=
re best to take as much as we can into consideration and go from there. But=
 it's not a issue of letting the "perfect be then enemy of the good". We'll=
 take the good.</div><div><br></div><div>I will bring it up on Engelang too=
. Thanks.</div><div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_612_2056974172.1410805361062--