Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au designates 104.47.117.66 as permitted sender) client-ip=104.47.117.66;
From: Timothy Lawrence <timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
Thread-Topic: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
Thread-Index: AQHTVnFaqkLkbB88ekaaL0OcLgq6XKMI4NQX
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:49:17 +0000
Message-ID: <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>,<78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: connect.qut.edu.au does not
 designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510SY3PR01MB0873ausp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a8d94629-63c9-43d1-2f37-08d525e6574a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Nov 2017 13:49:17.6384
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: dc0b52a3-68c5-44f7-881d-9383d8850b96
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SY3PR01MB0875
X-Original-Sender: timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au designates
 104.47.117.66 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au;
       dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=qut.edu.au
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <https://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban
List-Subscribe: <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--_000_SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510SY3PR01MB0873ausp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will not =
be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."
- Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/

I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have=
 a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.

I don't know much about the history of OpenGL but it, from a surface level,=
 seems similar to the history of C++, which I am familiar with.
By and large, new features are added to the C++ language, but every version=
 is backwards-compatible<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibili=
ty> with older versions (and almost entirely compatible with its predecesso=
r, C).
An older compiler might choke on new language features, but a new compiler =
will always work with old code.

Compiler vendors may introduce their own language features as forks (and th=
ey are not considered standard C++), but there is always a standard/"strict=
" mode that can be enabled. Most good features that compilers introduce hav=
e been added to the official version, perhaps changed in a way to integrate=
 them better.

This is what I think Lojban should be like.

I want all new / official Lojban versions to be CLL-compatible.


> "jbo_*" (imagine "jbo_FR", "jbo_EN", "jbo_CA"...),

I do not want there to be "jbo_A", "jbo_B", "jbo_C"... that are all incompa=
tible.

I do want "jbo_1", "jbo_2", "jbo_3"..., where it's a sequential chronology =
and each is a more improved (but backwards-compatible) version.

A tool could explicitly support "jbo_2" and it would implicitly support "jb=
o_1". If a tool just says it supports "jbo", it would be presumed to suppor=
t the latest.


> But this group ("committee"?) should accept the fact that language will e=
volve, whether they like it or not.

I hope that this means that they accept the language can change, by backwar=
ds-compatible design and not evolution via drift.

C++ does not at all "evolve" like a natural language and I don't think Lojb=
an should, either. Because C++ has maintained a centralised standard and co=
ntinued to update, I think it possible for Lojban to do so.


> What is clear, however, is that people don't want to use CLL Lojban (desp=
ite the fact that it is still the most thoroughly documented version).

I do. I think most people want to use the latest version of something. I se=
e the CLL Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility rea=
sons mentioned above.

I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new lea=
rners are likely to intuit that it's intrinsically better to choose the "la=
test version", not knowing that learning the modern versions entails embrac=
ing a schism.

> To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that L=
ojban was more that just an experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is...

This is so true for me, and one of the reasons that I became more quiet (al=
though I am writing an unannounced novel that contains CLL Lojban).

> I just don't want to spend time learning things if they would be thrown a=
way in a few months/years

> sykynder: You mention re-integrating forks back into the core language. H=
ow do you change something and then make it the same as it was before?

I believe all official Lojban changes must be backwards-compatible for Lojb=
an to succeed in its goal of being unambiguous (let alone succeed in other =
ways, such as adoption).


> E.g. learning a revised meaning {lo} is no big deal.

It's not just about learning, it's about effort invested in writing tools, =
texts, chatbots and parsers (et cetera).
It's about breaking that promise in the CLL that the language will not be s=
ubject to further fiddling.

Introducing changes that break Lojban compatibility will
- waste invested time in the older version
- waste invested money in buying the older CLL (etc)
- alienate those who wasted their time/money
- introduce more ambiguity (The Lojban version changes the meaning!!)

(Why did CLL-{le} become modern-{lo} and the modern-{le} get introduced, in=
stead of just introducing the new {lo} to mean what modern-{le} means and k=
eeping CLL-{le} as the default?)

As learning a revised meaning is no big deal, simply redoing these changes =
to be compatible with CLL Lojban should be no big deal ;)


"Lojban does not yet have nearly the vocabulary it needs to be a fully usab=
le language of the modern world"
- Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/

If we can agree to move forward using CLL Lojban and only make backwards-co=
mpatible changes, then I can personally say I'll be happy to resume devotin=
g time, energy and money into Lojban. Lojban's usefulness as an unambiguous=
 language is so important to me.

It doesn't have to be "perfect" or "better", it just has to be unambiguous =
and complete.


I want to help complete Lojban, and any processes of governance surrounding=
 it, to reunite it.


Thanks for reading,

mi'e la timoteios.

________________________________
From: lojban@googlegroups.com <lojban@googlegroups.com> on behalf of sukend=
er1@gmail.com <sukender1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2017 6:04 AM
To: lojban
Subject: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban

Wow. This is even worse than I thought.

One great thing about Lojban is that it is supposed to be unique. What I re=
ad here is like if people said "Hey, I invented a Lojban-French", and "Me, =
a Lojban-Chinese", and "Lojban-English"... That sounds so stupid.

Let me be clear: I'm NOT judging anyone forking Lojban. Surely they had goo=
d reasons to do so. Actually nobody can pretend forseeing any case, and wri=
te an "immutable" language. So yes, it is obvious that the language evolves=
 and will evolve, even an hypothetic "official an unique" Lojban.

What is unfortunate is that all forking work should be reintegrated in some=
 way to the "trunk", or else we'll end up with many "Lojbans" wich will act=
ually kill Lojban (whatever version).

I understand the lack of leadership, but it feels more like a lack of struc=
tures for democraty. It would be nice to have such structures, but unfortun=
ately I don't know how this could be initiated. One idea would be to mimic =
software, a bit as OpenGL did, having the core, extensions, and proposals.

[http://trac.openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/Kn=
owledgeBase/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png]<http://trac.=
openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/KnowledgeBase/O=
penGL/OpenGL3Notes/OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png>

[http://trac.openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/Kn=
owledgeBase/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png]


To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that Loj=
ban was more that just an experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is...

--
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<mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googl=
egroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com<mailto:lojban@=
googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--=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.

--_000_SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510SY3PR01MB0873ausp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:#000000;font=
-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir=3D"ltr">
<div><i>&quot;You can learn the language described here with assurance that=
 it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters.&quot;</i>=
<br>
- Complete Lojban Language <a previewremoved=3D"true" id=3D"LPlnk252822" hr=
ef=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" class=3D"OWAAutoLink">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/</a> <br>
<br>
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have=
 a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.<br>
<br>
I don't know much about the history of OpenGL but it, from a surface level,=
 seems similar to the history of C&#43;&#43;, which I am familiar with.<br>
By and large, new features are added to the C&#43;&#43; language, but every=
 version is <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility=
" class=3D"OWAAutoLink">
backwards-compatible</a> with older versions (and almost entirely compatibl=
e with its predecessor, C).<br>
An older compiler might choke on new language features, but a new compiler =
will always work with old code.<br>
<br>
Compiler vendors may introduce their own language features as forks (and th=
ey are not considered standard C&#43;&#43;), but there is always a standard=
/&quot;strict&quot; mode that can be enabled. Most good features that compi=
lers introduce have been added to the official version,
 perhaps changed in a way to integrate them better.<br>
<br>
This is what I think Lojban should be like.<br>
<br>
<u>I want all new / official Lojban versions to be CLL-compatible.</u><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">&quot;jbo_*&quot; (imagi=
ne &quot;jbo_FR&quot;, &quot;jbo_EN&quot;, &quot;jbo_CA&quot;...),</span></=
b><br>
<br>
I do not want there to be &quot;jbo_A&quot;, &quot;jbo_B&quot;, &quot;jbo_C=
&quot;... that are all incompatible.<br>
<br>
I do want &quot;jbo_1&quot;, &quot;jbo_2&quot;, &quot;jbo_3&quot;..., where=
 it's a sequential chronology and each is a more improved (but backwards-co=
mpatible) version.<br>
<br>
A tool could explicitly support &quot;jbo_2&quot; and it would implicitly s=
upport &quot;jbo_1&quot;. If a tool just says it supports &quot;jbo&quot;, =
it would be presumed to support the latest.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">But this group (&quot;co=
mmittee&quot;?) should accept the fact that language will evolve, whether t=
hey like it or not.</span></b><br>
<br>
I hope that this means that they accept the language can change, by backwar=
ds-compatible design and
<i>not</i> evolution via drift.<br>
<br>
C&#43;&#43; does not at all &quot;evolve&quot; like a natural language and =
I don't think Lojban should, either. Because C&#43;&#43; has maintained a c=
entralised standard and continued to update, I think it possible for Lojban=
 to do so.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">What is clear, however, =
is that people don't want to use CLL Lojban (despite the fact that it is st=
ill the most thoroughly documented version).</span></b><br>
<br>
I do. I think most people want to use the latest version of something. I se=
e the CLL Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility rea=
sons mentioned above.<br>
<br>
I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new lea=
rners are likely to intuit that it's intrinsically better to choose the &qu=
ot;latest version&quot;, not knowing that learning the modern versions enta=
ils embracing a schism.<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">To be frank, I feel a bi=
t betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that Lojban was more that just a=
n experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is...</span></b><br>
<br>
This is so true for me, and one of the reasons that I became more quiet (al=
though I am writing an unannounced novel that contains CLL Lojban).<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">I just don't want to spe=
nd time learning things if they would be thrown away in a few months/years<=
/span></b><br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">sykynder: You mention re=
-integrating forks back into the core language. How do you change something=
 and then make it the same as it was before?</span></b><br>
<br>
I believe all official Lojban changes must be backwards-compatible for Lojb=
an to succeed in its goal of being unambiguous (let alone succeed in other =
ways, such as adoption).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color: rgb(117, 123, 128);">E.g. learning a revised =
meaning {lo} is no big deal.</span></b><br>
<br>
It's not just about learning, it's about effort invested in writing tools, =
texts, chatbots and parsers (et cetera).<br>
It's about breaking that promise in the CLL that the language will not be s=
ubject to further fiddling.<br>
<br>
Introducing changes that break Lojban compatibility will<br>
- waste invested time in the older version<br>
- waste invested money in buying the older CLL (etc)<br>
- alienate those who wasted their time/money<br>
- introduce more ambiguity (The Lojban version changes the meaning!!)<br>
<br>
(Why did CLL-{le} become modern-{lo} and the modern-{le} get introduced, in=
stead of just introducing the new {lo} to mean what modern-{le} means and k=
eeping CLL-{le} as the default?)<br>
<br>
As learning a revised meaning is no big deal, simply redoing these changes =
to be compatible with CLL Lojban should be no big deal ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>&quot;Lojban does not yet have nearly the vocabulary it needs to be a fu=
lly usable language of the modern world&quot;</i><br>
- Complete Lojban Language <a previewremoved=3D"true" id=3D"LPlnk766371" hr=
ef=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" class=3D"OWAAutoLink">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/</a> <br>
<br>
If we can agree to move forward using CLL Lojban and only make backwards-co=
mpatible changes, then I can personally say I'll be happy to resume devotin=
g time, energy and money into Lojban. Lojban's usefulness as an unambiguous=
 language is so important to me.<br>
<br>
It doesn't have to be &quot;perfect&quot; or &quot;better&quot;, it just ha=
s to be unambiguous and complete.<br>
<br>
<br>
I want to help complete Lojban, and any processes of governance surrounding=
 it, to reunite it.<u></u></div>
<br>
<p>Thanks for reading,<br>
</p>
<br>
<span>mi'e la timoteios.</span><br>
<br>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex=3D"-1">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=
=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> lojban@googlegroups=
.com &lt;lojban@googlegroups.com&gt; on behalf of sukender1@gmail.com &lt;s=
ukender1@gmail.com&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 6 November 2017 6:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> lojban<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div>Wow. This is even worse than I thought.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One great thing about Lojban is that it is supposed to be unique. What=
 I read here is like if people said &quot;Hey, I invented a Lojban-French&q=
uot;, and &quot;Me, a Lojban-Chinese&quot;, and &quot;Lojban-English&quot;.=
.. That sounds so stupid.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me be clear: I'm <b>NOT </b>judging anyone forking Lojban. Surely =
they had good reasons to do so. Actually nobody can pretend forseeing any c=
ase, and write an &quot;immutable&quot; language. So yes, it is obvious tha=
t the language evolves and will evolve, even
 an hypothetic &quot;official an unique&quot; Lojban.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is unfortunate is that all forking work should be reintegrated in=
 some way to the &quot;trunk&quot;, or else we'll end up with many &quot;Lo=
jbans&quot; wich will actually kill Lojban (whatever version).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I understand the lack of leadership, but it feels more like a lack of =
structures for democraty. It would be nice to have such structures, but unf=
ortunately I don't know how this could be initiated. One idea would be to m=
imic software, a bit as OpenGL did,
 having the core, extensions, and proposals.</div>
<p class=3D"x_separator" style=3D"text-align:center; clear:both"><a preview=
removed=3D"true" id=3D"LPlnk250243" href=3D"http://trac.openscenegraph.org/=
projects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/KnowledgeBase/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/=
OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png" style=3D"margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em">=
<img style=3D"" border=3D"0" height=3D"216" width=3D"320" src=3D"http://tra=
c.openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/KnowledgeBase=
/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png"></a></p>
<p><img style=3D"max-width: 99.9%;" src=3D"http://trac.openscenegraph.org/p=
rojects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/KnowledgeBase/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/O=
penGL3DeprecationProcess.png"></p>
<p></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was tha=
t Lojban was more that just an experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is.=
..</div>
</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&#43;unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban&#43;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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

<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 />

--_000_SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510SY3PR01MB0873ausp_--