Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:20:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+gC2yqUjGRZNbAr0o6Zfexx5mZW2QygX+Q2k6pj9ETD+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c195ba87affe9055d65471c"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

--94eb2c195ba87affe9055d65471c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

2017-11-07 16:49 GMT+03:00 Timothy Lawrence <
timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au>:

> *"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_compatibility> with older
> versions (and almost entirely compatible with its predecessor, 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
> they are not considered standard C++), but there is always a
> standard/"strict" mode that can be enabled. Most good features that
> compilers introduce have 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
> incompatible.
>
> 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
> "jbo_1". If a tool just says it supports "jbo", it would be presumed to
> support the latest.
>


Remember though that Lojban is not a programming language in that its
grammar is not fully formal, only parts of it are. It's quite possible and
noted that there can be internal bugs (even if those are mistypes in its
English documentation) that won't make Lojban "compile".


>
>
>
> *> But this group ("committee"?) should accept the fact that language will
> evolve, whether they like it or not.*
>
> I hope that this means that they accept the language can change, by
> backwards-compatible design and *not* evolution via drift.
>
> C++ does not at all "evolve" like a natural language and I don't think
> Lojban should, either. Because C++ has maintained a centralised standard
> and continued 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
> (despite the fact that it is still the most thoroughly documented version).*
>
> I do.
>

I still don't know what it means "clear". How can  person not want to use
CLL Lojban if 'ey doesn't speak it? Bad tutorials? CLL being hard to
understand? But if we are talking about fluent speakers then does it matter
what they want to speak when they already speak CLL Lojban and the rest
doesn't have documentation?


> I think most people want to use the latest version of something. I see the
> CLL Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility reasons
> mentioned above.
>
> I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new
> learners are likely to intuit that it's intrinsically better to choose the
> "latest version", not knowing that learning the modern versions entails
> embracing a schism.
>
> *> To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that
> Lojban 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
> (although 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
> away in a few months/years*
>
> *> 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?*
>
> I believe all official Lojban changes must be backwards-compatible for
> Lojban 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
> subject 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, instead of just introducing the new
> {lo} to mean what modern-{le} means and keeping CLL-{le} as the default?)
>

well, {le} didn't become {lo} in most dialects ...


>
> 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
> usable 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-compatible changes, then I can personally say I'll be happy to
> resume devoting time, energy and money into Lojban.
>

Ok, can you join BPFK committee or LLG to help us update CLL at least in
terms of fixing mistypes?


> 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
> sukender1@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
> read 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
> good reasons to do so. Actually nobody can pretend forseeing any case, and
> write 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
> actually kill Lojban (whatever version).
>
> 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
> unfortunately 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/KnowledgeBase/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png>
>
>
>
>
> To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that
> Lojban 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
> email 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.
>
> --
> 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/e94H-wdh5gc/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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--94eb2c195ba87affe9055d65471c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2017-11-07 16:49 GMT+03:00 Timothy Lawrence <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au" target=3D"_blank">timothy=
.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex">


<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-=
size:10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);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 id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477LPlnk252822=
" href=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" class=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712=
150477OWAAutoLink" target=3D"_blank">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/<wbr>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&#39;t know much about the history of OpenGL but it, from a surface le=
vel, seems similar to the history of C++, which I am familiar with.<br>
By and large, new features are added to the C++ language, but every version=
 is <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility" class=
=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477OWAAutoLink" target=3D"_blank">
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++), but there is always a standard/&quot;s=
trict&quot; mode that can be enabled. Most good features that compilers int=
roduce 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><span=
 class=3D"gmail-"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">&quot;jbo_*&quot; (imagine &=
quot;jbo_FR&quot;, &quot;jbo_EN&quot;, &quot;jbo_CA&quot;...),</span></b><b=
r>
<br></span>
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&#39;s a sequential chronology and each is a more improved (but backward=
s-compatible) 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></div></div></div></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Remember though that Lojban is not a =
programming language in that its grammar is not fully formal, only parts of=
 it are. It&#39;s quite possible and noted that there can be internal bugs =
(even if those are mistypes in its English documentation) that won&#39;t ma=
ke Lojban &quot;compile&quot;.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204=
,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312=
712150477divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);fon=
t-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir=3D"ltr"><div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">But this group (&quot;commit=
tee&quot;?) should accept the fact that language will evolve, whether they =
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++ does not at all &quot;evolve&quot; like a natural language and I don=
9;t think Lojban should, either. Because C++ has maintained a centralised s=
tandard and continued to update, I think it possible for Lojban to do so.<b=
r>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">What is clear, however, is t=
hat people don&#39;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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I still don&#39;t k=
now what it means &quot;clear&quot;. How can=C2=A0 person not want to use C=
LL Lojban if &#39;ey doesn&#39;t speak it? Bad tutorials? CLL being hard to=
 understand? But if we are talking about fluent speakers then does it matte=
r what they want to speak when they already speak CLL Lojban and the rest d=
oesn&#39;t have documentation?</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div id=3D"gmai=
l-m_-7762755312712150477divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color=
:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir=3D"ltr"><div> I t=
hink most people want to use the latest version of something. I see the CLL=
 Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility reasons ment=
ioned above.<br>
<br>
I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new lea=
rners are likely to intuit that it&#39;s intrinsically better to choose the=
 &quot;latest version&quot;, not knowing that learning the modern versions =
entails embracing a schism.<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">To be frank, I feel a bit be=
trayed. I feel bad because my hope was that Lojban was more that just an ex=
periment. 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).<span cl=
ass=3D"gmail-"><br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">I just don&#39;t want to spe=
nd time learning things if they would be thrown away in a few months/years<=
/span></b><br>
<br>
</span><span class=3D"gmail-"><b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)=
">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?</spa=
n></b><br>
<br></span>
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).<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">E.g. learning a revised mean=
ing {lo} is no big deal.</span></b><br>
<br></span>
It&#39;s not just about learning, it&#39;s about effort invested in writing=
 tools, texts, chatbots and parsers (et cetera).<br>
It&#39;s about breaking that promise in the CLL that the language will not =
be subject 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}</div></div></div></blockquote><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px=
 solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div id=3D"gmail=
-m_-7762755312712150477divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:=
rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir=3D"ltr"><div> and =
the modern-{le} get introduced, instead of just introducing the new {lo} to=
 mean what modern-{le} means and keeping CLL-{le} as the default?)<br></div=
></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>well, {le} didn&#39;t become =
{lo} in most dialects ...</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div id=3D"gmail-m_-776275531271215=
0477divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-fam=
ily:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir=3D"ltr"><div>
<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 id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477LPlnk766371=
" href=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" class=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712=
150477OWAAutoLink" target=3D"_blank">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/<wbr>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&#39;ll be happy to resume dev=
oting time, energy and money into Lojban.</div></div></div></blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>Ok, can you join BPFK committee or LLG to help us update C=
LL at least in terms of fixing mistypes?</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bord=
er-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div =
id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:=
10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir=3D"ltr"=
><div> Lojban&#39;s usefulness as an unambiguous language is so important t=
o me.<br>
<br>
It doesn&#39;t have to be &quot;perfect&quot; or &quot;better&quot;, it jus=
t has 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&#39;e la timoteios.</span><br>
<br>
<div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font sty=
le=3D"font-size:11pt" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>Fro=
m:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@=
googlegroups.com</a> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=
=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt; on behalf of <a href=3D"mailto:=
sukender1@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">sukender1@gmail.com</a> &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:sukender1@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">sukender1@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;<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>=C2=A0</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&#39;m <b>NOT </b>judging anyone forking Lojban. Sur=
ely they had good reasons to do so. Actually nobody can pretend forseeing a=
ny case, and write an &quot;immutable&quot; language. So yes, it is obvious=
 that 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&#39;ll end up with many &quo=
t;Lojbans&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&#39;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.</div>
<p class=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477x_separator" style=3D"text-align:ce=
nter;clear:both"><a id=3D"gmail-m_-7762755312712150477LPlnk250243" href=3D"=
http://trac.openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/raw-attachment/wiki/Support/Kno=
wledgeBase/OpenGL/OpenGL3Notes/OpenGL3DeprecationProcess.png" style=3D"marg=
in-left:1em;margin-right:1em" target=3D"_blank"><img border=3D"0" height=3D=
"216" width=3D"320"></a></p>
<p><img style=3D"max-width: 99.9%;"></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><span class=3D"gmail-">
<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" target=3D"_blank">lo=
jban+unsubscribe@<wbr>googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/<wbr>optout</a>.<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><div class=3D"gmail-h5">


<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.go=
ogle.com/d/<wbr>topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/<wbr>unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+un=
subscribe@<wbr>googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/<wbr>optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></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+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 />

--94eb2c195ba87affe9055d65471c--