Received: from mail-wg0-f62.google.com ([74.125.82.62]:53914) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XWIu8-0007iI-11 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:49 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f62.google.com with SMTP id x12sf44061wgg.17 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:40 -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=x/lZCE8W/7AeVb1gULcUC+Bu7RpN3YJJ2SccpjHgmAI=; b=zUi3EOOGPdg9Y9qTiBoHq2T9d+y8Du2phI1LpL1cXWqjC5gi3RcuIy4mVa+ulc87nX xvdPKRhEFmg3UWMAr++/RHdTlkzDHi3WZo3lVHENt8L138i051GlHPkH9NvXQeHMetC1 5QKRq/jB4tgzx+zg2ZTifUelIcFAvIWZMdHtYPaBNPJL/4ZU6GkOcnYbubo0lzNkK8+a s7TdXnJmCfzNDP7vaSb/RGyjiEmsg5jGt0xEfyUl69xxc4PjtJKDQZHFurHotnqsChR9 WUriKkcgfASK1IJN/ZCl5Ahk9SUOdIxjIFyiiOY/huhXh3uivlwkCMUKrjeCBVFUnvyr 8Ldw== X-Received: by 10.152.19.226 with SMTP id i2mr164499lae.5.1411451080772; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.28.134 with SMTP id b6ls7113lah.42.gmail; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.137.230 with SMTP id ql6mr93327lbb.13.1411451079451; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j12si52364wie.2.2014.09.22.22.44.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::230; Received: by mail-wi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id fb4so4135927wid.3 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.187.241 with SMTP id fv17mr25645965wjc.13.1411451079342; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.175.167 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <541714B1.9080300@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:44:39 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative 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:c05::230 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=047d7bea3a6633c0ab0503b51054 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7bea3a6633c0ab0503b51054 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-15 22:44 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna : > > > 2014-09-15 22:22 GMT+04:00 TR NS : > >> >> 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? >> > > It is not going to stay in this state because there are people that are > working on it. > Robin is working on a new CLL, I'm working on a new dictionary, a new > tutorial and on Lojban Expertise Test. > > If this is the only reason you want a new language I can only suggest that > you join existing projects in Lojban. > > Loglan is mostly broken. E.g. it doesnt have mekso. > I'm surprised at the reaction to these words from some residents. Does Loglan have mekso? I got this information from the cefli in 2013. It didn't have. Neither in the parser. May be by some magic Loglan got mekso in 2014? > As for the dictionary most of its lujvo are in fact cimjvo. > This is also true. Just look at the prims compound words are made of. > You can take Core wordnet and translate it instead. > > There is no way Loglan can be united with Lojban because there is almost > nothing to take from Loglan that would pose any interest from Lojbanic > point of view. > > And can it actually ever be complete? And doesn't the whole notion of >> "completion" work against the notion of change? >> > > It doesn't. Describing a language in more details doesnt necessarily > invalidate old usage. > > But as for xorlo I dont like it not because of grammatical or semantical > reasons but because of paedagogical reasons when a change wasn't confirmed > in fundamental documents. > > Other than that I can't see any problems in Lojban except that many people > seem to be lazy. We'll have to deal with that. > > There've been other attempts to create forks of loglangs like reviving > guaspi community or xorban. > There've been voksigid and lojsk. > All these projects died. > > I think mostly due to the same reasons: the lack of tutorials, a reference > grammar as complete as CLL and a rich dictionary. > And of course compared to Lojban they provided no immediate advantages. > And no corpus of texts. > > >> 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. >> > > How's that? This *is *the goal of this community. > > >> 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. >> > > -- 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. --047d7bea3a6633c0ab0503b51054 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-15 22:44 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@g= mail.com>:


2014-09-15 22:22 GMT+04:00 TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>:

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

Something in between. On the on= e hand we're not starting out with Lojban (or Loglan) as the mainline l= anguage, but instead creating a synthesis, while also reconsidering the cho= ices 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/Lo= jban, not an attempt to create an wholly new logical language.
<= div>=C2=A0

If it's an initiative to complete the Lojban design, probably what&= #39;s required is someone to document the completions that xorxes and selpa= 'i would recommend -- maybe an informal document for others to check ov= er the recommendations, and then, if one were wanted, a formal CLL-like doc= ument. 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 perso= ns in charge give some service to change by "usage" and potential= consideration of proposals after full documentation of the current languag= e is complete. But how many decades are we to wait for that to happen?

It is not going to stay in t= his state because there are people =C2=A0that are working on it.
= Robin is working on a new CLL, I'm working on a new dictionary, a new t= utorial and on Lojban Expertise Test.

If this is t= he only reason you want a new language I can only suggest that you join exi= sting projects in Lojban.

Loglan is mostly broken.= E.g. it doesnt have mekso.

I'm surprised at the reaction to these words from some residen= ts.
Does Loglan have mekso?
I got this information from= the cefli in 2013. It didn't have. Neither in the parser.
Ma= y be by some magic Loglan got mekso in 2014?

= =C2=A0
As for the dictionary most of i= ts lujvo are in fact cimjvo.

<= /div>
This is also true. Just look at the prims compound words are made= of.
=C2=A0=C2=A0
You can t= ake Core wordnet and translate it instead.

There i= s no way Loglan can be united with Lojban because there is almost nothing t= o take from Loglan that would pose any interest from Lojbanic point of view= .

And can it actually ever be complete? And doesn't the= whole notion of "completion" work against the notion of change?= =C2=A0

It doesn't. D= escribing a language in more details doesnt necessarily invalidate old usag= e.=C2=A0

But as for xorlo I dont like it not becau= se of grammatical or semantical reasons but because of paedagogical reasons= when a change wasn't confirmed in fundamental documents.
Other than that I can't see any problems in Lojban except t= hat many people seem to be lazy. We'll have to deal with that.

There've been other attempts to create forks of loglan= gs like reviving guaspi community or xorban.
There've been vo= ksigid and lojsk.
All these projects died.=C2=A0

I think mostly due to the same reasons: the lack of tutorials, a r= eference grammar as complete as CLL and a rich dictionary.
And of= course compared to Lojban they provided no immediate advantages. And no co= rpus of texts.


Documenting the completions th= at xorxes and selpa'i would recommend is a good idea, but it's clea= r to me it would not change much here.

How's that? This is the goal of this community.
=C2=A0
I'd like to see these proposals posted to the Logla is= sues board where they will be definitely have an effect.

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

If it's an ini= tiative to create the best possible loglang, I suggest initiating discussio= n 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 pr= ogress 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 no= t 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. Sli= ghtly better documentation of the state of the art, e.g. Xorban, would be n= ice, 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 tha= t makes sense. We will do are best to take as much as we can into considera= tion and go from there. But it's not a issue of letting the "perfe= ct 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 &= quot;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.


--
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.
--047d7bea3a6633c0ab0503b51054--