Received: from mail-la0-f62.google.com ([209.85.215.62]:45973)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBVOOQWQQKGQE5NQ3AEI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XWPCW-0001Tu-RE
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:13 -0700
Received: by mail-la0-f62.google.com with SMTP id gi9sf683768lab.27
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=TA4wyoodPPR/L3wlCmru970t9GrNjzBT2EI6bHhA8ug=;
        b=bj75GpcNsQ11Fvt+6As4lP/fqykwSsD2sUOhFKZOu2TPl2UGgpLVMMi33FbzqH7GVH
         jt4Y39hALBitL503JskYzMbkz7wWtlmij3VrkNNDbDJ6qqWI9v+tIp/IFhozJJvfnojM
         o30IFTUzteQ93A12H5TeIHmgLpaDUkhvefAOcmXRxouYhQ2aZRHfsX0qisW1ZB8zGpKA
         kwJm/LgIVkJiBodOjcMiKTGZQFHbaK6y0/JyyFnel+djoOgNHAR2N5fPo+Qv4/uCWm6b
         pJ0mmhnnuw21HtUTKstm3vPjC9r8fj4vU5G7wUohJqsOd1mSfEu3u5NU4Td6h6L72GGL
         QtEQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.104.133 with SMTP id ge5mr14339wib.3.1411475285418;
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.180.91.231 with SMTP id ch7ls465474wib.11.canary; Tue, 23 Sep
 2014 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.183.165 with SMTP id en5mr2962431wic.1.1411475284941;
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::230])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id go4si106617wib.3.2014.09.23.05.28.04
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::230;
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w61so3619317wes.7
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.108.73 with SMTP id hi9mr11328582wjb.88.1411475284841;
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.224.104])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ny6sm2103037wic.22.2014.09.23.05.28.03
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54216771.9060804@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:28:33 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative
References: <e0b23cf5-5a67-4a9b-8db0-7d310eb4116e@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+i+hVkH0Exmr2enk6oFbzX7vi9nyyjycZMXJvj+0VUbCg@mail.gmail.com> <54186B05.1000802@lojban.org> <CAO7bV+gLiD1osy+Gh4mu_KC0MOsjRJSm=LRgW1zgcPWAapfXtA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+gLiD1osy+Gh4mu_KC0MOsjRJSm=LRgW1zgcPWAapfXtA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::230
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed

Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/2014 17:57:
>     On 9/15/2014 11:14 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:
>         Personally, though I am perfection-driven, I
>         have decided that it is a better use of time and talent (a lot of=
 the
>         one, a little of the other) to work with a nearly completed proje=
ct in
>         the hope that it will mange to get completed into a product that =
is good
>         enough (does all the crucial things, even if in sloppy, inefficie=
nt,
>         even ugly, ways).
>
> Provided both languages have a formal syntax and a clearly defined
> connection between the two dictionaries it won't matter a lot what
> language will be spoken since the machine translation will be 100%
> precise under such circumstances.

This is not even remotely true. First of all, the formal syntaxes would hav=
e to contain logical forms, which a formal syntax indeed should, but hardly=
 any do (and Lojban's doesn't). Second, the "clearly defined connection" be=
tween the dictionaries would work only if for each word in the one language=
 there is a word in the other language that always translates it, and this =
one-to-one translation is explicitly stated. The only way this is going to =
happen is if the two languages are deliberately designed to be intertransla=
table.

Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 17/09/2014 15:40:
> On 9/16/2014 5:36 PM, TR NS wrote:
>> If you want to attract people to this language you have to make it
>> so damn good that people can't help themselves.

I agree with that. But I think nobody yet knows how to make it good enough.=
 More on this when I reply to the Engelang message.

> Alas, what some of the tinkerers thing is "so damn good" is anything
> but to other people.

Broadly, Lojbanists fall into two groups.

I. Those like, say, me, who know and care about logic and linguistics.
II. Those like, say, you, who don't know and don't care about logic and lin=
guistics.

History has shown a consensus among Group I. If you know and care about log=
ic and linguistics, then you are painfully conscious of Lojban's inadequaci=
es and want a better language. If you don't know and care about logic and l=
inguistics, then change to Lojban seems gratuitous and you want the languag=
e to stay the same. The ideas for change coming from Group I seem like tink=
ering only to those, like you, who don't understand them or the issues invo=
lved.

In the population in general, Group II is vastly larger than Group I, but I=
 have never been able to understand why people from Group II are attracted =
to Lojban in the first place. Therefore I suppose, perhaps wrongly, that mo=
st Lojbanists must fall into Group I and want something that actually is a =
logical language, and therefore support a progressive rather than ultracons=
ervative position.

> What will attract people is a body of other people actively using the
> language, materials published in the language, possibly including
> stuff not otherwise available (original works in Lojban). People
> USING the language, and not arguing about changes to it is what will
> make things seem "so damn good". You apparently don't realize how
> demoralizing it is to most people to read about yet another suggested
> change, and it is a turnoff simply to see changes being the primary
> discussion topic on the mailing list. "So damn good" necessarily has
> to mean "no one wants to keep tinkering with it".

But what happens -- as with current Lojban -- when people seeking a logical=
 language -- snd ideally one with a speech community -- arrive and find tha=
t all those Lojbanists who actually understand the logicolinguistics issues=
 agree that current Lojban is not fit for the purpose of being a logical la=
nguage? It seems to me that they want the language to get fixed. People arr=
ive and find discussion about change a disillusioning turn-off because it r=
eveals that Lojban advertises itself under false pretences; it is neither c=
omplete nor a logical language.

Forking would fix this, allowing people to vote with their feet.

>> I have looked at those. Any tonal language (IMHO) is doomed from the get
>> go.
>
> That is probably because you aren't Chinese. And there are a lot more
> Chinese than English native speakers.


There are more Chinese speakers than speakers of Basque, too. But, more rel=
evantly, there are more people who don't speak Chinese than people who do.

--And.

--=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.