Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMOGbhsaqu_7vDio542Hb3YXAoAhAuFGZxXZicTK3jHE9sg7gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com>
	<540B374A.9040409@lojban.org>
	<CAO7bV+gQQtt4qtnrj6LUWpj5rv5Qpkoy3GaKsg+CewG3-Mw+OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDmBpHS_h8ui41oZnKO4kt13KdVCodTa+crWzo3E9hyyBummg@mail.gmail.com>
	<540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com>
	<540F391F.5050002@lojban.org>
	<336d2f55-fba7-46d5-8a8a-332e0dd24f39@googlegroups.com>
	<CAMDmBpEwhMWSBPYx088g218xhSaAQq+k8utESSiiZLgVMdm_UQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1410392694.38855.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAMOGbhsaqu_7vDio542Hb3YXAoAhAuFGZxXZicTK3jHE9sg7gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:35:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP=UV6ovYGBSW6GwjtU+MhBYN8dDL512X2q0TF5B8aOCfCHC0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership
From: Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

At least some change proposals come from a belief that there are holes
which cannot be filled without changing some of the things around
them. (This is where xorlo came from; CLL gadri weren't merely
underspecified but broken. I don't know nearly enough of the logic
involved to say definitively that the crack has been fixed, but I
understand the general consensus to be somewhere in between "yes" and
"maybe.")

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, we should stop pretending that everyone thinks they are just filling
> in holes in the language. Change proposals do exist. And not all of the
> "holes" are necessarily going to pertain to the logical underpinning, it
> sends to me. That said, this sounds like a noble quest -- it'd be great to
> have a proof that Lojban actually is a logical language. Based on the number
> of terms I understood in your email, I'm unfortunately not going to have the
> time or skill to contribute, so I'll focus my efforts in other parts of
> Lojbanistan, but I wish you well.
>
> mu'o mi'e la durka
>
> On Sep 10, 2014 7:44 PM, "'John E Clifford' via lojban"
> <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> A modest proposal for a way forward together.
>> Some say Lojban just needs a bit more description, some say it needs a
>> number of changes, so say it needs scraping and a fresh start. Needs for
>> what, pray?  Though some seem unhappy (I can't think why) with this
>> characterization, the reason for Lojban is orthoparsing.   Does Lojban have
>> this property?  There is scarcely a demonstration of monoparsing, let alone
>> that the resulting structure maps to a unique formula of logic, and far from
>> that it is the right unique structure.  So, let's get together and prove.
>> In the process, we will find whatpartsof the current definition need filling
>> in, because they will be points where the sought algorithm lacks input.
>> Further, the development of the algorithm will guide what form the additions
>> should take.  The same will be true if there are parts that are just wrong,
>> don't fit in with the program.  In the end, we will have a complete
>> description of a Lojban pretty close (I assume, but then, ...) to the
>> present one which will demonstrably do what it claims to do and will differ
>> from the present one only in filling in what was left out (or had not yet
>> gotten in) and in corecting what was wrong before.  Wrong in a fairly
>> objective way -- not just inelegant or some aesthetic of political
>> consideration but because it got in the way of the project.  This seems to
>> be a project to satisfy everyone (well, there is probably a perfectionist
>> somewhere who will not accept a finished functioning language while he can
>> still dream a"perfect" but unbegun one).  As a side result, the work on the
>> algorithm will probably produce a G&T grammar for Lojban as well, giving a
>> complete description in yet another linguistic theory.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:20 PM, Dustin Lacewell
>> <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> TR NS,
>>
>> This is the unifying reason the FAR MAJORITY of conlangs die! Accept this
>> at face value!
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:02 PM, TR NS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 1:30:07 PM UTC-4, lojbab wrote:
>>
>>
>> This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of people
>> explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high.  More
>> importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of conlangs
>> whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop fiddling with
>> the language design.  Those that have survived and spread have stopped
>> being developed, and are simply USED.
>>
>>
>> Do you truly believe people would leave the language if a change was made
>> form "on-high" if it were a clear improvement? Just because it is a change?
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "lojban" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "lojban" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.

-- 
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.