Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <27b823dc-ad5c-42a9-ab81-03ad12babb42@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <54186D9D.1030600@lojban.org>
References: <e0b23cf5-5a67-4a9b-8db0-7d310eb4116e@googlegroups.com> <541714B1.9080300@gmail.com> <rWNr1o03N56Cr6M01WNtCG>
 <54186D9D.1030600@lojban.org>
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_56_745995812.1410903413175"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_56_745995812.1410903413175
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:39:34 PM UTC-4, lojbab wrote:
>
> On 9/15/2014 2:22 PM, TR NS wrote: 
> > 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? 
>
> I think we are closer than you imagine.  Robin is working on the next 
> edition of CLL this week, and I am reasonably sure it will be out when 
> we need it next year. 
>
> The consideration of proposals could take a long time, or relatively 
> little.  If the proposers document their proposed changes in the form of 
> change pages to CLL, it makes it fairly easy to consider those changes 
> and incorporate them relatively quickly (as well as to understand how 
> minor or major a given proposal is). 
>

I have no doubt little will change. And I have it one good authority. I 
have read though a large portion of the mailing list archives and your 
position is clear "absolute commitment to the baseline".
 

>
> > And can it actually ever be complete? 
> > And doesn't the whole notion of "completion" work against the notion of 
> > change? 
>
> If the language is essentially complete and well-documented, I hope and 
> expect that the pressure for change will fall off.  Right now we have 
> 15-odd years of accumulated but undocumented change proposals.  After 
> they are decided, then one would hope that new proposals would come at a 
> slower rate. 


That apparently has been the plan all along.

"That is (and always has been) the intent as approved by the Board of the 

present, and I will support such myself in the future, but the decision 
will be up to the voting members at that time, as to what LLG will or won't 
do.  I have little doubt that once we have a solid Lojban-speaking 
community, there will be no more need for a formal freeze/baseline than 
Esperanto has, and the language prescription will have approximately the 
same force that the Fundamento has on Esperanto - keeps in mind the core of 
the language as it originated, but actual usage often deviates in minor 
ways from Zamenhof's designs.  The community itself will be the real 
normative force, and not the prescription." (http://mail.lojban.org/lists/lojban-list/msg02689.html)


If they don't, then any project that you come up with is 
> just as doomed as Lojban to the same fate. 
>

I think you have it all wrong. Change is inevitable and I think you just 
squandered ten years that could have been spent directing that change and 
perfecting the language. Instead you spent the time doing everything you 
could to keep change at bay. And it is woefully wishful thinking, to 
believe that CLL 2.0, "to be published in a couple of years at most", will 
bring a watershed of speakers (thanks to all your efforts at stability) and 
thus this new large body of users will subsequently keep the language 
stable by natural inertia.

My belief is the opposite. If you want to attract people to this language 
you have to make it so damn good that people can't help themselves. They 
got to look at it and immediately go "Damn! I'd be a fool not to learn 
this." Right now you're pushing roast beef. But it's going to take cotton 
candy and nutritious cotton candy at that! And that's going to take a lot 
more work and an acceptance of change. What's the old saying... "In 
writing, you must kill your darlings."
 

> > Besides, starting a new project also allows us to take a step back and 
> > reconsider things that would simply not be possible otherwise. 
>
> You'd be surprised as to the sort of things that were "reconsidered" in 
> prior iterations.  Look at guaspi and Voksigid for prior efforts to 
> reconsider Lojban. 
>
>
I have looked at those. Any tonal language (IMHO) is doomed from the get 
go. Voksigid had some good ideas, but never really got off the ground. And 
I have looked an many many more.
 

-- 
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_56_745995812.1410903413175
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:39:34 PM UTC-4, l=
ojbab wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-lef=
t: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On 9/15/2014 2:22 =
PM, TR NS wrote:
<br>&gt; I don't see how a fork can be avoided. I think it's become very cl=
ear
<br>&gt; that Lojban, pretty much as it is presently documented, is how the
<br>&gt; language is going to stay. The persons in charge give some service=
 to
<br>&gt; change by "usage" and potential consideration of proposals after f=
ull
<br>&gt; documentation of the current language is complete. But how many de=
cades
<br>&gt; are we to wait for that to happen?
<br>
<br>I think we are closer than you imagine. &nbsp;Robin is working on the n=
ext=20
<br>edition of CLL this week, and I am reasonably sure it will be out when=
=20
<br>we need it next year.
<br>
<br>The consideration of proposals could take a long time, or relatively=20
<br>little. &nbsp;If the proposers document their proposed changes in the f=
orm of=20
<br>change pages to CLL, it makes it fairly easy to consider those changes=
=20
<br>and incorporate them relatively quickly (as well as to understand how=
=20
<br>minor or major a given proposal is).
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have no doubt little will change. An=
d I have it one good authority. I have read though a large portion of the m=
ailing list archives and your position is clear "absolute commitment to the=
 baseline".</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: =
1ex;">
<br>&gt; And can it actually ever be complete?
<br>&gt; And doesn't the whole notion of "completion" work against the noti=
on of
<br>&gt; change?
<br>
<br>If the language is essentially complete and well-documented, I hope and=
=20
<br>expect that the pressure for change will fall off. &nbsp;Right now we h=
ave=20
<br>15-odd years of accumulated but undocumented change proposals. &nbsp;Af=
ter=20
<br>they are decided, then one would hope that new proposals would come at =
a=20
<br>slower rate. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>That apparently has been =
the plan all along.</div><div><br></div><div><font face=3D"arial, sans-seri=
f">"<span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That is (and always has been) the =
intent as approved by the Board of the&nbsp;</span></font></div><pre style=
=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif">present, and I w=
ill support such myself in the future, but the decision=20
will be up to the voting members at that time, as to what LLG will or won't=
=20
do.  I have little doubt that once we have a solid Lojban-speaking=20
community, there will be no more need for a formal freeze/baseline than=20
Esperanto has, and the language prescription will have approximately the=20
same force that the Fundamento has on Esperanto - keeps in mind the core of=
=20
the language as it originated, but actual usage often deviates in minor=20
ways from Zamenhof's designs.  The community itself will be the real=20
normative force, and not the prescription." </font><span style=3D"color: rg=
b(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(http://mail.loj=
ban.org/lists/lojban-list/msg02689.html)</span></pre><div><br></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-lef=
t: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">If they don't, then any project that =
you come up with is=20
<br>just as doomed as Lojban to the same fate.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you have it all wrong. Change =
is inevitable and I think you just squandered ten years that could have bee=
n spent directing that change and perfecting the language. Instead you spen=
t the time doing everything you could to keep change at bay. And it is woef=
ully wishful thinking, to believe that CLL 2.0, "to be published in a coupl=
e of years at most", will bring a watershed of speakers (thanks to all your=
 efforts at stability) and thus this new large body of users will subsequen=
tly keep the language stable by natural inertia.</div><div><br></div><div>M=
y belief is the opposite. If you want to attract people to this language yo=
u have to make it so damn good that people can't help themselves. They got =
to look at it and immediately go "Damn! I'd be a fool not to learn this." R=
ight now you're pushing roast beef. But it's going to take cotton candy and=
 nutritious cotton candy at that! And that's going to take a lot more work =
and an acceptance of change. What's the old saying...&nbsp;"In writing, you=
 must kill your darlings."</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left: 1ex;">&gt; Besides, starting a new project also allows us to t=
ake a step back and
<br>&gt; reconsider things that would simply not be possible otherwise.
<br>
<br>You'd be surprised as to the sort of things that were "reconsidered" in=
=20
<br>prior iterations. &nbsp;Look at guaspi and Voksigid for prior efforts t=
o=20
<br>reconsider Lojban.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have looked at those. Any tonal lang=
uage (IMHO) is doomed from the get go. Voksigid had some good ideas, but ne=
ver really got off the ground. And I have looked an many many more.</div><d=
iv>&nbsp;</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_56_745995812.1410903413175--