Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:48:18 -0800 (PST)
From: sukender1@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <38c97c6d-7f22-48da-a55e-c748fbdb830f@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_5998_545525032.1510260498447"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_5998_545525032.1510260498447
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_5999_900504285.1510260498447"

------=_Part_5999_900504285.1510260498447
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

[*This is a try for summarizing discussions*]

@all

** Living language **
I've read a bit though more pages and messages. And found that historically 
speaking, and according to what's in the FAQ and other LLG pages, Lojban is 
not immutable at all. Else it would be a "dead language" like ancient Greek 
(to paraphrase la .stevo.) or a pure experiment for a specific point in 
time. However, it is considered as "stable", even if changes may occur, 
because else it "would require people to re-learn things" (as some of you 
pointed out). Thus, changes are possible but must be CAREFULLY validated.

So in two words: "*Lojban evolves*". Right.

That's my point of view too. And that's where issues arise!... Indeed, 
validating changes is a huge job requiring time, structures, procedures, 
and language skills (if not more). I feel la .pycyn. is right saying it "is 
a very delicate balance". And la .stevo. too, talking about very difficult 
reintegrations of forks to the core.

** Pending organizational issues **
Moreover, la .guskant. clearly told us that current organizations are dead 
or almost dead. So here is a small and macroscopic summary of what I feel 
like pending issues (feel free to complete/fix):

   - Missing info about status of people (ex: no more time to spend on the 
   project)
   - Missing "roles" (about what to do) and assignations (which one does 
   what)
   - Missing well defined and easy-to-use protocols for:
      - Submission, reviewing, voting, integrating (of new official content)
      - Certification (of existing content)
   - Low notoriety
      - More would bring new Lojbanists (and thus more manpower)
      - Non-Lojbanists generally don't even know about it (= word not 
      spread)
   - Not enough time for skilled Lojbanists to do all what would be 
   necessary to improve
   - A few persons "on their own mind", blocking stuff

However, to make things move, there must be a consensus on the basics, so...

** Lojban basics **
What defines Lojban? (Or "What should never change in Lojban?"). So, if I 
try to sum up again from various sources, the answers are below (please 
tell if you disagree):

*YES!*

   - Non-ambiguous grammar (~= monoparsing, machine parsable)
   - Unicity (~= forks are experiments or proposals)
   - Cultural neutrality
   - Partially based on logic
   - Rather stable ("rather" has to be refined)
   - Usable (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)
   - Usage defines the language, as long as these "basics" are untouched.
      - However the "usage" is rather a blurry situation for now... 
   

*NO!*

   - Immutable base grammar, and immutable base vocabulary (cmavo, 
   important gismu...)
   - Targeted to be TOTALLY based on logic
   - Ideal (or "perfect") language (la .pycyn. pointed out that issue)
   

*Maybe desirable, but impossible*

   - Backward-compatibility of versions (added after what la .timoteios. 
   said)
   - Fully formal and complete grammar (as Gleki and And Rosta said)
   - Keep strictly what original designers wanted (because they could not 
   foresee all potential issues)
   

[*That concludes this first step. Please share your thoughts!*]

la .sykyndyr.

-- 
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.

------=_Part_5999_900504285.1510260498447
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>[<i>This is a try for summarizing discussions</i>]</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>@all</div><div><br></div><div><font size=3D"4"><b>* =
Living language *</b></font></div><div>I&#39;ve read a bit though more page=
s and messages. And found that historically speaking, and according to what=
&#39;s in the FAQ and other LLG pages, Lojban is not immutable at all. Else=
 it would be a &quot;dead language&quot; like ancient Greek (to paraphrase =
la .stevo.) or a pure experiment for a specific point in time. However, it =
is considered as &quot;stable&quot;, even if changes may occur, because els=
e it &quot;would require people to re-learn things&quot; (as some of you po=
inted out). Thus, changes are possible but must be CAREFULLY validated.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>So in two words: &quot;<b>Lojban evolves</b>&quot;. R=
ight.</div><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s my point of view too. And that=
9;s where issues arise!... Indeed, validating changes is a huge job requiri=
ng time, structures, procedures, and language skills (if not more). I feel =
la .pycyn. is right saying it &quot;is a very delicate balance&quot;. And l=
a .stevo. too, talking about very difficult reintegrations of forks to the =
core.</div><div><br></div><div><b><font size=3D"4">* Pending organizational=
 issues *</font></b></div><div>Moreover, la .guskant. clearly told us that =
current organizations are dead or almost dead. So here is a small and macro=
scopic summary of what I feel like pending issues (feel free to complete/fi=
x):</div><div><ul><li>Missing info about status of people (ex: no more time=
 to spend on the project)<br></li><li>Missing &quot;roles&quot; (about what=
 to do) and assignations (which one does what)<br></li><li>Missing well def=
ined and easy-to-use protocols for:</li><ul><li>Submission, reviewing, voti=
ng, integrating (of new official content)</li><li>Certification (of existin=
g content)</li></ul><li>Low notoriety</li><ul><li>More would bring new Lojb=
anists (and thus more manpower)</li><li>Non-Lojbanists generally don&#39;t =
even know about it (=3D word not spread)</li></ul><li>Not enough time for s=
killed Lojbanists to do all what would be necessary to improve</li><li>A fe=
w persons &quot;on their own mind&quot;, blocking stuff</li></ul></div><div=
>However, to make things move, there must be a consensus on the basics, so.=
..</div><div><br></div><div><b><font size=3D"4">* Lojban basics *</font></b=
></div><div>What defines Lojban? (Or &quot;What should never change in Lojb=
an?&quot;). So, if I try to sum up again from various sources, the answers =
are below (please tell if you disagree):</div><div><br></div><div><b><u>YES=
!</u></b></div><div><ul><li>Non-ambiguous grammar (~=3D monoparsing, machin=
e parsable)<br></li><li>Unicity (~=3D forks are experiments or proposals)<b=
r></li><li>Cultural neutrality<br></li><li>Partially based on logic<br></li=
><li>Rather stable (&quot;rather&quot; has to be refined)<br></li><li>Usabl=
e (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)<br></li><li>Usage defines t=
he language, as long as these &quot;basics&quot; are untouched.</li><ul><li=
>However the &quot;usage&quot; is rather a blurry situation for now...=C2=
=A0</li></ul></ul></div><div><br></div><div><b><u>NO!</u></b></div><div><ul=
><li>Immutable base grammar, and immutable base vocabulary (cmavo, importan=
t gismu...)<br></li><li>Targeted to be TOTALLY based on logic<br></li><li>I=
deal (or &quot;perfect&quot;) language (la .pycyn. pointed out that issue)<=
br></li></ul></div><div><b><u><br></u></b></div><div><b><u>Maybe desirable,=
 but impossible</u></b></div><div><ul><li>Backward-compatibility of version=
s (added after what la .timoteios. said)<br></li><li>Fully formal and compl=
ete grammar (as Gleki and And Rosta said)<br></li><li>Keep strictly what or=
iginal designers wanted (because they could not foresee all potential issue=
s)<br></li></ul></div><div><br></div><div>[<i>That concludes this first ste=
p. Please share your thoughts!</i>]</div><div><br></div><div>la .sykyndyr.<=
/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 />

------=_Part_5999_900504285.1510260498447--

------=_Part_5998_545525032.1510260498447--