Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.218;
Message-ID: <541B847D.603@lojban.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:18:53 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Growth and decline in lojbanistan
References: <5ebfd7de-df4d-4bac-90e9-08d182557c8c@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fS+WaE5_P-Lx=ALcsNYe8zSQQuk-S9X8orSaWKJCda-A@mail.gmail.com> <863e6344-9008-44be-8546-eed800c0a630@googlegroups.com> <1410966712.92433.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <sNtx1o00P56Cr6M01NtydE> <541A3543.5080109@lojban.org> <sWCS1o00B56Cr6M01WCTE5>
In-Reply-To: <sWCS1o00B56Cr6M01WCTE5>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 9/18/2014 2:12 AM, mukti wrote:
> I've been meaning to return to the question of the (in)completeness of
> lojban's design since our exchange in the "Revitalizing LLG" thread last
> month <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/k7hIqBcTsXI/zge7y-72_HcJ>.
>
> The January 10, 1997 declaration of the baseline
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/1997+Baseline+Announcement> read, "THE
> LOGLAN/LOJBAN LANGUAGE DESIGN is considered COMPLETE". You offered the
> opinion that this is "still official policy".

I guess that I am wrong about this, because of the way the 2002=20
statement discussed the topic.

>  1. *How could the declaration of "completeness of design" have survived
>     the adoption of the 2002 Baseline Statement?* The text of the 2002
>     policy <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement>
>     states that it "specifically supplants the official statement on the
>     baseline", adding, "our statement, that the language design was
>     'complete', was =E2=80=A6 premature.

The latter was my statement, and referred to the cmavo list being=20
unacceptably lacking in definitions (along with a lack of approved=20
examples of lujvo and fu'ivla with place structures).  These I have=20
always considered documentation matters as distinguished from design,=20
when I have spoken on the matter, but technically, the design isn't=20
complete until the documentation is done, and the 2002 statement=20
recognized that fact.  But I continue to be somewhat sloppy in thinking=20
that the stuff baselined in 1997 (CLL, gismu, cmavo, and rafsi)=20
constituted a "complete" design.

" It proposes a specific path to
>     restoring "completeness", setting a goal of "having the LLG
>     membership declare the language baseline to be complete at the
>     annual meeting of the LLG in the summer of 2003. Upon that
>     completion, the language design (baseline) will be frozen."

It set forth certain tasks that we thought could be easily completed.=20
Nick (and Robin after him) considered the cmavo documentation problem to=20
be a much bigger job than we thought when I wrote the 2002 statement.

>  2. Alternately, supposing that the 2002 Baseline Statement did have the
>     force to supplant the 1997 declaration, and given that the 2003
>     Annual meeting made no declaration of completeness: *When was a
>     recognition of "completeness of design" restored to the language,
>     and how was that process recorded?*

It has not, because the BPFK never moved beyond step one of its tasking=20
(in the 2002 statement), which said

> The primary task of the language design commission (banpla
> fuzykamni)  will be to complete brief definitions of the cmavo. The >targ=
et date=20
for this effort shall be 15 May 2003, in order for >consideration by the
 >members at the annual meeting of 2003; if that target date cannot be
 >met, then the member ratification of the final baseline declaration=20
 >will be delayed until the following year. It is intended that this=20
 >effort shall take priority over work on other tasks charged to the >byfy.

We are still trying to accomplish this.

> Perhaps there is no way to reconcile "completeness of design" with the
> Baseline Statement and everything that has happened (and not happened)
> since. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. "Lojban: You're Doing It
> Wrong
> <http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=3DLojban%3A+You%27re+Doing+I=
t+Wrong>"
> seems to have envisioned a lojban where "completeness" is not a baseline
> assumption, but a guiding principle, however unattainable:
>
>     the job of the BPFK is to formalize Lojban in perfect detail, with
>     the understanding that this is to occur in response to the language
>     uses and its users, and thus will never actually be finished

I think Robin likewise was not looking at the original byfy charter,=20
which had a much more limited set of assignments for the BPFK.  When=20
those 4 assignments are complete and approved as the new baseline by the=20
voting membership, then the conditions of the 2002 statement will have=20
been met.

The 4th assignment, by the way, includes the consideration of the=20
various proposals such as xorlo which are changes 1997 design.  Xorlo=20
qualifies under point 5, as usage that has been established contrary to=20
the existing documentation.  dotside and perhaps a lot of the IRC=20
proposals may also qualify, but we won't know until they are documented,=20
which is why I have stressed that need for documentation in the form of=20
change pages to CLL in recent comments.

lojbab


--=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.