Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <507cbf11-c335-42e2-8a82-57e5f43e81b1@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj0Zd2bYcYPv08n2LRHFN74AL_BkMHee5ZPaw=1AS9P8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e0b23cf5-5a67-4a9b-8db0-7d310eb4116e@googlegroups.com>
 <541714B1.9080300@gmail.com>
 <b7dbd33d-3ebd-48eb-b45e-6e90d4f59491@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7bV+hBU3TyXr56V_q1C2mQAybuMfo3_00U_DVb16m=VeoH4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <b83f94eb-1ae9-4959-ba42-c056d2066383@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj0Zd2bYcYPv08n2LRHFN74AL_BkMHee5ZPaw=1AS9P8Gw@mail.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_1784_274268103.1410827992740"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_1784_274268103.1410827992740
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Monday, September 15, 2014 5:45:18 PM UTC-4, aionys wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, TR NS <tran...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Logla is a means to take on larger potential changes. Things like 
>> simplified connectives (
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/lojban/proposal/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg/A5IdZQ9Y5OEJ), 
>> a simplified rafsi system, even re-consideration of the morphology.
>>
>
> Speaking specifically of the connectives, I myself look forward to the day 
> when that proposal arrives on the voting block so I can cast my approval. 
> Large changes to Lojban are not impossible. If it's a good idea, then I'm 
> fairly certain the BPFK would vote it in- not unanimously, I'm sure, we 
> don't all agree on everything. Not counting the freeze in place until the 
> baseline is completed, the only thing that would prevent a change- great or 
> small- to Lojban, is whether or not such a change was verifyably better 
> than the thing before the change. And, in fact, even the freeze doesn't 
> prevent change entirely, as xorlo happened even with the freeze, which 
> seems to me to say that xorlo's changes are so obviously better than the 
> previous state that waiting for the baseline was just not worth it.
>
> Admittedly, I don't think it very likely that a change proposal for the 
> morphology would be very likely, but again, that really depends on the 
> change itself. I mean, everyone knows the mekso portion of it is completely 
> borked right now, so if someone managed to come up with a mekso that 
> wasn't, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it voted in.
>
> But even so, there are a lot of things I've seen proposed during my time 
> here that I would expect would likely get passed were they ever formally 
> put to the BPFK. Off the top of my head, changing the meaning of sa (it 
> currently means "erase previous up to point of following word's class" as 
> in {mi nelci lonu plise sa lo plise}, but in my admittedly limited 
> experience people tend to use it as "replace that typo with this word" as 
> in {mi klama fo lo karce sa fu}), making kibro, lo'ai, sa'ai, le'ai 
> official, and probably a bunch of other stuff I can't think of off the top 
> of my head.
>
> I can't say whether or not a fork would be needed for what you desire, 
> since I don't know what you desire beyond cutting through the red tape, but 
> I don't agree that a fork is needed to cut through the tape-- it's one 
> ribbon. Granted, it's a big ribbon that's still being cut after decades of 
> on again, off again work by a vast number of people done a bit at a time 
> until each person maxed out their burnout:caring ratio (I did a few 
> sections before I hit that, actually), but it's not a hard task, just one 
> being done with "dull" scissors. (Because the work is tedious. Ha! A pun!)
>
>
I just don't see it happening. Even if you get this documentation work 
complete, the next edition of CLL is going to have to be printed next year. 
So only some minor adjustments are going to make it into that. And once 
printed, it will set the baseline for the next decade at least. Anything 
more than a minor proposal after it will be immediately hit with the 
argument that people are relying on the stability of the new CLL. By the 
time the next edition needs to be printed (in 2030?) some minor usage based 
changes will have made inroads, I'm sure, like the `sa` proposal, but 
little else and certainly nothing major. I think lojbob's remarks is the 
Leadership thread make that pretty clear (e.g. 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/o-ELt2EaT9IJ). The same 
arguments against changes as we approach the second printing will be even 
more salient with the approach of the third.

The bottom line is that ideas like a morphology that doesn't require stress 
to parse, or the use of the final vowel to indicate sumti position, or a 
simplified rafsi system that doesn't require memorization, and so on, are 
simply never going to be given consideration. And I don't think it is 
unreasonable to want a derivation of Loglan/Lojban where such ideas can be 
explored.


-- 
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_1784_274268103.1410827992740
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br>On Monday, September 15, 2014 5:45:18 PM UTC-4, aionys=
 wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.=
8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, TR NS <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailt=
o=3D"5Gj4eDpWqBcJ" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;" o=
nclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;">tran...@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D=
"ltr"><div>Logla is a means to take on larger potential changes. Things lik=
e simplified connectives (<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/forum/#!sear=
chin/lojban/proposal/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg/A5IdZQ9Y5OEJ" target=3D"_blank" onm=
ousedown=3D"this.href=3D'https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/lojban/=
proposal/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg/A5IdZQ9Y5OEJ';return true;" onclick=3D"this.hre=
f=3D'https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/lojban/proposal/lojban/ExtE=
umbYoQg/A5IdZQ9Y5OEJ';return true;">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>forum/#!=
searchin/lojban/<wbr>proposal/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg/<wbr>A5IdZQ9Y5OEJ</a>), a =
simplified rafsi system, even re-consideration of the morphology.</div></di=
v></blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"></div><div>Speaking specifically of =
the connectives, I myself look forward to the day when that proposal arrive=
s on the voting block so I can cast my approval. Large changes to Lojban ar=
e not impossible. If it's a good idea, then I'm fairly certain the BPFK wou=
ld vote it in- not unanimously, I'm sure, we don't all agree on everything.=
 Not counting the freeze in place until the baseline is completed, the only=
 thing that would prevent a change- great or small- to Lojban, is whether o=
r not such a change was verifyably better than the thing before the change.=
 And, in fact, even the freeze doesn't prevent change entirely, as xorlo ha=
ppened even with the freeze, which seems to me to say that xorlo's changes =
are so obviously better than the previous state that waiting for the baseli=
ne was just not worth it.<br><br>Admittedly, I don't think it very likely t=
hat a change proposal for the morphology would be very likely, but again, t=
hat really depends on the change itself. I mean, everyone knows the mekso p=
ortion of it is completely borked right now, so if someone managed to come =
up with a mekso that wasn't, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it voted=
 in.<br><br></div><div>But even so, there are a lot of things I've seen pro=
posed during my time here that I would expect would likely get passed were =
they ever formally put to the BPFK. Off the top of my head, changing the me=
aning of sa (it currently means "erase previous up to point of following wo=
rd's class" as in {mi nelci lonu plise sa lo plise}, but in my admittedly l=
imited experience people tend to use it as "replace that typo with this wor=
d" as in {mi klama fo lo karce sa fu}), making kibro, lo'ai, sa'ai, le'ai o=
fficial, and probably a bunch of other stuff I can't think of off the top o=
f my head.<br><br></div><div>I can't say whether or not a fork would be nee=
ded for what you desire, since I don't know what you desire beyond cutting =
through the red tape, but I don't agree that a fork is needed to cut throug=
h the tape-- it's one ribbon. Granted, it's a big ribbon that's still being=
 cut after decades of on again, off again work by a vast number of people d=
one a bit at a time until each person maxed out their burnout:caring ratio =
(I did a few sections before I hit that, actually), but it's not a hard tas=
k, just one being done with "dull" scissors. (Because the work is tedious. =
Ha! A pun!)<br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
I just don't see it happening. Even if you get this documentation work comp=
lete, the next edition of CLL is going to have to be printed next year. So =
only some minor adjustments are going to make it into that. And once printe=
d, it will set the baseline for the next decade at least. Anything more tha=
n a minor proposal after it will be immediately hit with the argument that =
people are relying on the stability of the new CLL. By the time the next ed=
ition needs to be printed (in 2030?) some minor usage based changes will ha=
ve made inroads, I'm sure, like the `sa` proposal, but little else and cert=
ainly nothing major. I think lojbob's remarks is the Leadership thread make=
 that pretty clear (e.g. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/_juGorRhWtI=
/o-ELt2EaT9IJ). The same arguments against changes as we approach the secon=
d printing will be even more salient with the approach of the third.</div><=
div><br></div><div>The bottom line is that ideas like a morphology that doe=
sn't require stress to parse, or the use of the final vowel to indicate sum=
ti position, or a simplified rafsi system that doesn't require memorization=
, and so on, are simply never going to be given consideration. And I don't =
think it is unreasonable to want a derivation of Loglan/Lojban where such i=
deas can be explored.</div><div><br></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_1784_274268103.1410827992740--