Received: from mail-lf0-f57.google.com ([209.85.215.57]:33185) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bLETN-0007Ci-5i for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:36 -0700 Received: by mail-lf0-f57.google.com with SMTP id a4sf9700881lfa.0 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=sender:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Y4Q+HcBCvUcaie14YQWYdUFtbl/K9EpgKZufXtU+5Po=; b=B5vk6NbICLpXvu6/K5nj6YIltHQwu1X3Wg5lL30fdQlf+U8bzpZslgpG/LqDHARGVB EoLU8dfIR2NRZHDFwdvQm9q5rvROcxfD745ifv+nFogY+V2sCFu1tFBTLWTCazSvLgqr nUmgVmDWg4o71b2p5i9ZaRQa4SGd79DigefUMFlqmKwXIvna+T4dSW65440nk+IRPrCo pDnECSV/9OdamKeEsNr1lPmCH1A5Hq78k9yas1UIWNBTVwKTKdzPxzIbupDOWxZt4Aq3 f5xV1WLATnU43ZcKEZWNQWu/SKuxLiLhPdsvxS0ym17kg/Qmyguy13qqZaQhqu07LLml h9Jg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Y4Q+HcBCvUcaie14YQWYdUFtbl/K9EpgKZufXtU+5Po=; b=tUAQbn0UAA6QLIPNkYjUtaTcfU6izlGSWuHrumYY1nNRotbEZbOpZd0gLSAE/eu2vi +l+G9SPV4HXSvWIRTrG9blZP2VoWdXMjH0veAPIo3MAKsMGRMNwWYkUSJSqH/Bo5cvsv CwyTtUHyDHjkRWB+2C2W/Z/rHZYVUta2KDVLZ2sKIwjbGHyI4xS2DBD5kdUB3hpCwWAm wH/BWvPHtxdETu7eZb7xF9R8F6cW4hRf5fKpLvJj7AjmOfkbH2FKyIymnPu3WgfbCgNc LbT7ri6djsavgI/smTT3lf/cWOvOZKe0C5c3ogn4iaabsWLE2vgDJfoa1QY0ZRl0+kB3 5WgQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject :to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Y4Q+HcBCvUcaie14YQWYdUFtbl/K9EpgKZufXtU+5Po=; b=XXhGwk6sxZquZJstlTeAxbRJIKvbMy6kiP6sTIAp4HMTcJD+y9cUjtss5jDNKK8A7J qk2Z07OVbOIY24P+OanW2QpNzwCEgk4qcinBFub0ehhLipb+9Vrg1vYsP1ANQvWTJOMx OJWNT7evPkIUnHUHyR7xd4knrFczwDX5ydk/jsw6iiBkbxnzfuKTLEzWLZmyrKsOR1GS glJ00aYvfFK6oFSqxxaApVaftT1ufpFOBaNU5a/c4RHPZmqFfwI/zUmupUwQKHGtE9R+ oO8jMFg2h6G4ri9OtldrAf8g53wnjSdPy1OZhrGZ74ABWjsxP/6TJUQ6jv3JgLSWd68H IsGA== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIs+x5OWXR79O+lABFBGDN15lwQ8V0hpzn4zfqsaMc32XVYtib1L2/qHaNbF16v1g== X-Received: by 10.46.32.152 with SMTP id g24mr14159lji.8.1467917782026; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.25.24.68 with SMTP id o65ls35832lfi.3.gmail; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.46.0.164 with SMTP id e36mr307564lji.5.1467917781542; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 65si214016wmr.3.2016.07.07.11.56.21 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ciuak.prog@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c; Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id l188so17326757lfe.2 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.25.133.135 with SMTP id h129mr517710lfd.28.1467917780929; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.80.65 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruno Panasiewicz Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:56:20 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Opinion Poll: Results To: mriste Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fbc66e454e40537103d95 X-Original-Sender: ciuak.prog@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ciuak.prog@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ciuak.prog@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-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.6 X-Spam_score_int: 6 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi! The poll's closed. *18* people have participated. Big thanks to each of them. Now, here are the results: [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.215.57 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ciuak.prog[at]gmail.com) 2.4 BAD_CREDIT BODY: Eliminate Bad Credit -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.2 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders --001a113fbc66e454e40537103d95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! The poll's closed. *18* people have participated. Big thanks to each of them. Now, here are the results: I. Are you comfortable with using OL (Official Lojban)? (Not at all) 1: =3D=3D *2* 2: =3D=3D=3D=3D *4* 3: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *5* 4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *5* 5: =3D=3D *2* (Totally) Average: *3.06* Median: *3* *As we can see, OL is an only somewhat natural loglang. * II. Do you think that OL is complete, mature? (It really lacks) 1: =3D=3D *2*2: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *6*3: =3D=3D=3D=3D * 4*4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *6*5: *0* (It's complete) Average: *2.78* Median: *3* *Notice that no-one has voted it's complete!* III. If you were to write something in Lojban, how close to OL would it be? 1: =3D *1*2: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *6*3: =3D=3D *2*4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *7*5: =3D=3D *2* Average: *3.17* Median: *3.5* *Looks like OL isn't the exact choice =E2=80=94 only 2 out of 18 decided th= ey'd *" *go for it.* IV. Which of these languages are Lojban to you? (multiple choice) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+++ *15* CLL Lojban =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++++ *14* BPFK Lojban (OL) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++++++ *12* IRC Lojban =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++++++ *12* zantufa Lojban =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+++++++ *11* la oz Lojban ++++++++++++++++++ *00 *Loglan *Apparently, CLL Lojban is more of a Lojban that OL, and Loglan got no credit.* Let's look at IV from a different perspective: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+++++++ *11* all of BPFK, CLL, IRC, zantuf= a and Oz *of which* =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D~~~ 8 choose just that ~~~~~~~~=3D~~ 1 adds CeKiTauJau dialects ~~~~~~~~~=3D~ 1 adds xorxes' experimental parser's Lojban ~~~~~~~~~~=3D 1 adds all dialects "sufficiently intelligible for Lojbanists= " (incl. CeKiTauJau) +++++++++++=3D++++++ *1* CLL, BPFK, IRC ++++++++++++=3D+++++ *1* CLL, BPFK +++++++++++++=3D=3D+++ *2* only CLL +++++++++++++++=3D++ *1* only BPFK ++++++++++++++++=3D+ *1* only zantufa +++++++++++++++++=3D *1* only his idiolect (An idiolect is a dialect of a language spoken by one specific person.) *In other words, most allow all of the Lojbans out there!* V. Which model of approving changes to OL is the most appropriate in your opinion? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+++++++++ *9* A commitee/board decides +++++++++=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++ *7* The community votes ++++++++++++++++=3D=3D *2* No idea ++++++++++++++++++ *0* One person approves *As you can see, a commitee is the most popular choice (though it isn't a majority), and a voting approach is the runner-up.* VI. Do you think that the current model will lead to forking of the language? (It won't) 1: *0*2: =3D=3D=3D=3D *4*3: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *6*4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *5*5: =3D=3D=3D *3* (It will inevitably) Average: *3.39* Median: *3* *No one thinks the language won't fork, so that means something, doesn't it.* VII. Do you think that the model you deem as the most appropriate will lead to such forking? 1: =3D=3D *2*2: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *9*3: =3D=3D=3D=3D *4*4: =3D *1*5: =3D=3D *2* Average: *2.56* Median: *2* VIII. Do you think "tinkering" is a positive or negative term? (Negative) 1: =3D *1*2: =3D=3D=3D *3* 3: =3D=3D=3D=3D *4*4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D *7*5: =3D=3D=3D *3* (Positive) Average: *3.44* Median: *4* *Good it's positive.* IX. Specific proposals... *The numbers (and graphs) show the no of approvals, don't-knows and disapprovals. If the number is bold, the majority approves of that grammatical feature.* *12* 5 1 ++++++++++++~~~~~=3D Connective system reform *11* 6 1 +++++++++++~~~~~~=3D {voi}/{poi'i} *10* 5 3 ++++++++++~~~~~=3D=3D=3D cekitaujau (swapping frequent long words = with less frequent shorter ones) 1 14 3 +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=3D=3D=3D GA BO and GA with 3+ args 8 10 0 ++++++++~~~~~~~~~~ {xoi}/{noi'a} family (adverbial clauses) 09 6 3 +++++++++~~~~~~=3D=3D=3D Brivla-cmevla merge *14* 3 1 ++++++++++++++~~~=3D Dotside [*already approved by BPFK*] *12 *3 3 ++++++++++++~~~=3D=3D=3D Allowing some currently banned consonant clusters (like -mz-) *12 *4 2 ++++++++++++~~~~=3D=3D fu'ivla rafsi (loanwords as affixes) *It seems like most of the current experimental stuff is approved by the majority!* These were the results of the poll. I hope that the last question reveals that most of us want to bring some experimental features into OL. Thank you once again, ~ mi'e la uakci mu'o --=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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a113fbc66e454e40537103d95 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

T= he poll's closed. 18 people have participated. Big thanks to eac= h of them.

Now, here are the results:

I. Are you = comfortable with using OL (Official Lojban)?

(Not at all)
<= /div>
1: =3D=3D 2
2: =3D=3D=3D=3D 4
3: =3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D 5
4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 5
5: =3D=3D 2
= (Totally)
Average: 3.06
Median: 3

As we can see, OL is an only somewhat natural loglang.

=
II. Do you think that OL is complete, matur= e?

(It really lacks)
1:= =3D=3D 2
2: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 6
3: =3D=3D=3D=3D 4<= br>4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 6
5: 0
(It'= s complete)
Average: 2.78
Median: 3
Notice that no-one has voted it's complete!
=
III. If you were to write something in = Lojban, how close to OL would it be?

1: =3D 1
2: =3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D 6
3: =3D=3D 2
4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 75: =3D=3D 2
Average: = 3.17
Median: 3.5

Looks like OL isn't the exact choic= e =E2=80=94 only 2 out of 18 decided they'd "go for it.
=
IV. Whic= h of these languages are Lojban to you? (multiple c= hoice)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+++ 15 CLL Lojban
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++++ 14 BPFK Lojban (OL= )
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D++++++ 12 IRC Lojban
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++++++ 12 zantufa Lojban
<= span class=3D"">=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+++++++ 11 la oz Lo= jban
++++++++++++++++++ 00 Log= lan

Apparently, CLL Lojban is = more of a Lojban that OL, and Loglan got no credit.

Let's look at IV from a different perspective:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D+= ++++++ 11 all of BPFK, CLL, IRC, zantufa and Oz of which
<= /span>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D~~~ 8 choose just= that
~~~~~~~~=3D~~ 1 adds CeKiTauJau= dialects
~~~~~~~~~=3D~ 1 adds xorxes= ' experimental parser's Lojban
~~~~~~~~~~=3D 1 adds all dialects "sufficiently intelligible for Loj= banists" (incl. CeKiTauJau)
++++= +++++++=3D++++++ 1 CLL, BPFK, IRC
++++++++++++=3D+++++ 1 CLL, BPFK
+++++++++++++=3D=3D+++ 2 only CLL
+++++++++++++++=3D++ 1 only BPFK
<= span class=3D"">++++++++++++++++=3D+ 1 only zantufa
=
+++++++++++++++++=3D 1 only his idiolect
(An idiolect is a dialect of a language sp= oken by one specific person.)

= In other words, most allow all of the Lojbans out there!

=
V. Which model of appro= ving changes to OL is the most appropriate in your opinion?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D+++++++++ 9 A commitee/board decides
+++++++++=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D++ 7 The community = votes
++++++++++++++++=3D=3D 2= No idea
++++++++++++++++++ 0 = One person approves

As you can= see, a commitee is the most popular choice (though it isn't a majority= ), and a voting approach is the runner-up.

VI. Do you think that the current mod= el will lead to forking of the language?

(It won't)
1: 0
2: =3D=3D=3D=3D 4
3: =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 6
4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 5
5: =3D=3D=3D = 3
(It will inevitably)
=
Average: 3.39
Median: 3

N= o one thinks the language won't fork, so that means something, doesn= 9;t it.

VII. Do you think that the model you deem as the most appropriate will l= ead to such forking?

1: =3D=3D 2
2: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D 9
3: =3D=3D=3D=3D 4
4: =3D 1
5: =3D=3D= 2
Average: 2.56
Median: 2

<= span class=3D"">VIII. Do you think "tinkering&= quot; is a positive or negative term?

(Negative)
1: =3D 1
2: =3D=3D=3D 3
3: =3D=3D= =3D=3D 4
4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 7
5: =3D=3D=3D 3
(Positive)
Average: 3.44
M= edian: 4

Good it's = positive.

IX. Specific propos= als...

The numbers (and graphs= ) show the no of approvals, don't-knows and disapprovals. If the number= is bold, the majority approves of that grammatical feature.
=

12 5 1 ++++++++++++~~~~~=3D = Connective system reform
11 6 1 +++++++++++~~~~~~= =3D {voi}/{poi'i}
10 5 3 ++++++++++~~~~~=3D=3D= =3D cekitaujau (swapping frequent long words with less frequent shorter one= s)
1 14 3 +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=3D=3D=3D GA BO and GA with 3+ a= rgs
8 10 0 ++++++++~~~~~~~~~~ {xoi}/{noi'a} family (a= dverbial clauses)
09 6 3 +++++++++~~~~~~=3D=3D=3D Brivla= -cmevla merge
14 3 1 ++++++++++++++~~~=3D Dotside = [already approved by BPFK]
12 3 3 +++++++= +++++~~~=3D=3D=3D Allowing some currently banned consonant clusters (like -= mz-)
12 4 2 ++++++++++++~~~~=3D=3D fu'ivla raf= si (loanwords as affixes)

= It seems like most of the current experimental stuff is a= pproved by the majority!

These were the results of the poll.

=
I hope that the la= st question reveals that most of us want to bring some experimental feature= s into OL.

Thank you once again,

~ mi'e la uakci mu'o

--
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= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a113fbc66e454e40537103d95--