Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:56:08 -0800 (PST)
From: sukender1@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <3a342986-92d1-47e1-a9fe-5f2acb7b3942@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <03cb7058-3183-4b01-96f6-6a58ea2286e4@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <03cb7058-3183-4b01-96f6-6a58ea2286e4@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12576_1803657699.1509976568897"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.3
X-Spam_score_int: -12
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_12576_1803657699.1509976568897
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_12577_956151907.1509976568898"

------=_Part_12577_956151907.1509976568898
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[*side note: I'll answer {la guskant} when I will have read the answer and=
=20
links ;-)* ]

Thank you for that historical answer, Gleki.
Yes, I perfectly understand the huge damage it can cause.

Nevertheless, I also understand why this may arise: I *never *saw a set of=
=20
rules accepted by 100% of people!

   - Laws? There are plenty of debates. Countries have different ones.=20
   People disagree on many, but also often agree on *core* ones.
   - Coding style rules? There are as many guidelines as coders! However,=
=20
   enforcing the whole developer team to use them makes teamwork more=20
   effective. They're like a common *language*.
   - Language rules? Phew! Everyone knows someone who has his/her "very=20
   own" way to spell words, or organize sentences...
  =20
For the sake of Lojban's survival and spreading (and despite my very short=
=20
history on that language), I think all must agree on some *unique* version,=
=20
*and* accept the debate to make it evolve, *and* accept that not all=20
proposals will fit in, *and* that reintegration of proposals may take=20
months or years.
Said otherwise, we must all "agree to disagree", may I say...

By the way, your answer makes me think about software distributions. Do we=
=20
want our future GNU-Linux / Android / iOS / Windows / BSD / whatever=20
contain a lot of "jbo_*" (imagine "jbo_FR", "jbo_EN", "jbo_CA"...), or just=
=20
a unique "jbo" language?
Unicity of Lojban is, IMHO, vital. I personally would just drop learning=20
Lojban if I had no hope of that.

Thanks again.

la .sykyndyr.


Le lundi 6 novembre 2017 14:10:44 UTC+1, Gleki Arxokuna a =C3=A9crit :
>
> This is a long standing issue. As shanoxilt once correctly noted Lojban=
=20
> was hijacked by a clique of so called fluent speakers.
> They started forking never completing any printed documentation of they=
=20
> were doing. Firs they change the meaning of the particle {lo}, then tried=
=20
> to implement other changes including even the formal grammar.
>
> When people try to speak to fluent speakers they are immediately faced=20
> with these discprepancies between The Complete Lojban Language book and=
=20
> views of particular people. You can imagine all the negative consequences=
=20
> of this situation.
>
> But in spite of deterioration of Lojban community and its inability to=20
> produce any fruitful results still Lojban is pretty much how The Complete=
=20
> Lojban Language describes it.
> E.g. learning a revised meaning {lo} is no big deal.
>

--=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.

------=_Part_12577_956151907.1509976568898
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>[<i>side note: I&#39;ll answer {la guskant} when I wi=
ll have read the answer and links ;-)</i>=C2=A0]</div><div><br></div><div>T=
hank you for that historical answer, Gleki.</div><div>Yes, I perfectly unde=
rstand the huge damage it can cause.</div><div><br></div><div>Nevertheless,=
 I also understand why this may arise: I <b>never </b>saw a set of rules ac=
cepted by 100% of people!</div><div><div><ul><li>Laws? There are plenty of =
debates. Countries have different ones. People disagree on many, but also o=
ften agree on <b>core</b> ones.<br></li><li>Coding style rules? There are a=
s many guidelines as coders! However, enforcing the whole developer team to=
 use them makes teamwork more effective. They&#39;re like a common <b>langu=
age</b>.<br></li><li>Language rules? Phew! Everyone knows someone who has h=
is/her &quot;very own&quot; way to spell words, or organize sentences...<br=
></li></ul></div><div>For the sake of Lojban&#39;s survival and spreading (=
and despite my very short history on that language), I think all=C2=A0must =
agree on some <b>unique</b> version,=C2=A0<b>and</b> accept the debate to m=
ake it evolve, <b>and</b> accept that not all proposals will fit in, <b>and=
</b> that reintegration of proposals may take months or years.<br></div><di=
v>Said otherwise, we must all &quot;agree to disagree&quot;, may I say...</=
div><div><br></div><div>By the way, your answer makes me think about softwa=
re distributions. Do we want our future GNU-Linux / Android / iOS / Windows=
 / BSD / whatever contain a lot of &quot;jbo_*&quot; (imagine &quot;jbo_FR&=
quot;, &quot;jbo_EN&quot;, &quot;jbo_CA&quot;...), or just a unique &quot;j=
bo&quot; language?</div><div>Unicity of Lojban is, IMHO, vital. I personall=
y would just drop learning Lojban if I had no hope of that.</div></div><div=
><br></div><div>Thanks again.</div><div><br></div><div><div>la .sykyndyr.</=
div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><br>Le lundi 6 novembre 2017 14=
:10:44 UTC+1, Gleki Arxokuna a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>This is a long standing issue. As s=
hanoxilt once correctly noted Lojban was hijacked by a clique of so called =
fluent speakers.</div><div>They started forking never completing any printe=
d documentation of they were doing. Firs they change the meaning of the par=
ticle {lo}, then tried to implement other changes including even the formal=
 grammar.</div><div><br></div><div>When people try to speak to fluent speak=
ers they are immediately faced with these discprepancies between The Comple=
te Lojban Language book and views of particular people. You can imagine all=
 the negative consequences of this situation.</div><div><br></div><div>But =
in spite of deterioration of Lojban community and its inability to produce =
any fruitful results still Lojban is pretty much how The Complete Lojban La=
nguage describes it.</div><div>E.g. learning a revised meaning {lo} is no b=
ig deal.</div></div></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_12577_956151907.1509976568898--

------=_Part_12576_1803657699.1509976568897--