Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SY3PR01MB08733806D926A36CF1726EB0EB560@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>
 <CACf3dPnmCuGXQtxQOOrP9T9pDthhthx3rnoCdaFoai+fM8M6Wg@mail.gmail.com> <SY3PR01MB08733806D926A36CF1726EB0EB560@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:44:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CACf3dPncGvkjQjbxL4MV_omG0R-e66V1CDcZFrt2hVU8iYWf0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05f4844849b6055ddf2628"
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: -

--94eb2c05f4844849b6055ddf2628
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 8 Nov 2017 12:54, "Timothy Lawrence" <timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au>
wrote:

*> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not
internally consistent,*

What do you mean?


CLL does not give complete and consistent rules for unambiguously mapping
Lojban sentences to logical forms. For folk for whom Lojban's purportedly
being a logical language is its paramount property, that is a big deal.


Is there something that documents this?


I don't know. It's certainly there in the mail archives and antique wiki
pages. Selpahi read through 25 years of email and wiki discussion in order
to understand the issues.

My sense is that the folk who care about logic are more interested simply
in mending the language rather than in creating documents that focus on
explaining in one place all the problems with CLL Lojban, but there may
well be newer expository stuff I don't know about.

A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided into those
who care about logic and those who don't (and can therefore favour CLL
Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into those who want
to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logical issues
and those who think that if you're going to make any changes at all then
you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws in order to
make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two positions
weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL thoroughly
against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might learn and
use Lojban in future.


*> is not complete,*

I agree and would like to help complete it.


This is the job of the BPFK, but not much progres is visible from that
group.

In my view, xorxes and selpahi should simply define bodies of candidate new
rules and changes and the rest of the BPFK or community or LLG should vote
on them by some suitably intelligent voting method. You could make it more
democratic by allowing anyone to submit proposed changes, but I would be
inclined to vote for exactly whatever xorxes and selpahi propose. Those
innovations elected would be deemed to supersede CLL where there is
incompatibility. And then textbook writers can write it up. Admittedly,
that already happened for xorlo, but nobody has yet textbooked it.

--And.

-- 
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.

--94eb2c05f4844849b6055ddf2628
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On 8 Nov 2017 12:54, &quot;Timothy Lawrence&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:timothy.lawrence@connect.qut.edu.au" target=3D"_blank">timothy.lawre=
nce@connect.qut.<wbr>edu.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockqu=
ote class=3D"m_-3440443217654592608quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"m_-3440443217654592608m_-3206932908669513511divtagdefaultwrapper=
" dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,=
Helvetica,sans-serif,&quot;EmojiFont&quot;,&quot;Apple Color Emoji&quot;,&q=
uot;Segoe UI Emoji&quot;,NotoColorEmoji,&quot;Segoe UI Symbol&quot;,&quot;A=
ndroid Emoji&quot;,EmojiSymbols"><div class=3D"m_-3440443217654592608quoted=
-text">
<p></p>
<div><b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">We have long known that=
 CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent,</sp=
an></b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div><div>What do you mean? </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></d=
iv><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">CLL does not give complete=
 and consistent rules for unambiguously mapping Lojban sentences to logical=
 forms. For folk for whom Lojban&#39;s purportedly being a logical language=
 is its paramount property, that is a big deal.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto=
"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"m_-34404432176545=
92608quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div id=3D"m_-3440443217654592608m_-3206932908669=
513511divtagdefaultwrapper" dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0=
,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,&quot;EmojiFont&quot;,&quot;=
Apple Color Emoji&quot;,&quot;Segoe UI Emoji&quot;,NotoColorEmoji,&quot;Seg=
oe UI Symbol&quot;,&quot;Android Emoji&quot;,EmojiSymbols"><div>Is there so=
mething that documents this?</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I don&#39;t know. It&#39;s =
certainly there in the mail archives and antique wiki pages. Selpahi read t=
hrough 25 years of email and wiki discussion in order to understand the iss=
ues.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">My sense is t=
hat the folk who care about logic are more interested simply in mending the=
 language rather than in creating documents that focus on explaining in one=
 place all the problems with CLL Lojban, but there may well be newer exposi=
tory stuff I don&#39;t know about.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided =
into those who care about logic and those who don&#39;t (and can therefore =
favour CLL Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into tho=
se who want to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logic=
al issues and those who think that if you&#39;re going to make any changes =
at all then you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws i=
n order to make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two p=
ositions weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL th=
oroughly against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might lea=
rn and use Lojban in future.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"m_-3440443217654592608quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><div id=3D"m_-3440443217654592608m_-3206932908669513511divtagdefaultwrappe=
r" dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri=
,Helvetica,sans-serif,&quot;EmojiFont&quot;,&quot;Apple Color Emoji&quot;,&=
quot;Segoe UI Emoji&quot;,NotoColorEmoji,&quot;Segoe UI Symbol&quot;,&quot;=
Android Emoji&quot;,EmojiSymbols">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>&gt; <span style=3D"color:rgb(117,123,128)">is not complete,</span>=
</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree and would like to help complete it.</div></div></div></blockqu=
ote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">This is=
 the job of the BPFK, but not much progres is visible from that group.</div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">In my view, xorxes and selpa=
hi should simply define bodies of candidate new rules and changes and the r=
est of the BPFK or community or LLG should vote on them by some suitably in=
telligent voting method. You could make it more democratic by allowing anyo=
ne to submit proposed changes, but I would be inclined to vote for exactly =
whatever xorxes and selpahi propose. Those innovations elected would be dee=
med to supersede CLL where there is incompatibility. And then textbook writ=
ers can write it up. Admittedly, that already happened for xorlo, but nobod=
y has yet textbooked it.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"=
>--And.</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 />

--94eb2c05f4844849b6055ddf2628--