Received: from mail-vk0-f62.google.com ([209.85.213.62]:51242) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eEu8z-0007Ph-U6 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:38:07 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f62.google.com with SMTP id w186sf10887481vkf.10 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:38:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=KYEWr74EvlMafYAK/FAJYHTSBFm/TaXQWLKJWIWB2Y0=; b=RvJ2Xbw4SnUOZSdm9fw6rG0YeRwNPpvA/0HYlMJ9zUOp725X2TCpfKWjyDq+HdtlPP wk3IYS9bX1ADqRad4xW3l0xk7Wim5BKAYaKr1UuE51B2EoaHJ9HmFOAL5yZHyhUyp8g4 SrsLgLiYZNMzQL+MlQrT8xhbtYKmcBlZQozR1rhZvw5NLmf2GzxN9Nrq8vT3o4PRefNj qe4jgur+/bEqnpBDeQIZGN71WXlDoMYd93ikxIUkzyOth8b17l1KbufXunDaRPfCNr/R Vavfl9uPpUHnNv8U4PallFsSQxk6pq/l+pMavbC/osR3Z2QQEouZtfNm76ciTHKA3cew yd3A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=KYEWr74EvlMafYAK/FAJYHTSBFm/TaXQWLKJWIWB2Y0=; b=IaBX/BHdf8cuHuMZKLMbyjC9vfegHWsfLLTYd6fSaITb36rX61HLRASemAexK0g0bO ae/157c4kbDRAly8VeShmmhP7xleW50KWCtQNwLsYVQFyQHPPE/LhwWffnyawfkQPv3j dcBCUyoRGPMkGhryUK+D//CWnXx+8o5MaPX+9xy6/1IKuG+97nuFgQE9hhxFfsaFR/b4 mhLsD3HYrPH0W9cPQhotL8Th/A8in9+URqwhC4lqzO4kSxzCaNE0sHhQJAP5qS2hPdY0 oeBmPEQGXdr2MxSck+9/ddiXGcqtJJb9q9h3mQPfi4fiwPdOkNcPUv1WY0RL5I3YE7IN i2cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=KYEWr74EvlMafYAK/FAJYHTSBFm/TaXQWLKJWIWB2Y0=; b=n77A1VB8T1pdVKhTeNb+wf/l6qn/r8/xMFUR7otG93oDf5MaZsPn+hmbY1lREhAEBk RqhAdEJ7nbF8YzPGO1X9T08CqEB6cwUhMqkBbge7tzdZybKkyHHuQJhDCtLxauVSzuRF fU7FJ0gQucJMacP7hCh7M4mhlj1aI3aDbRAG75birSZ0QzVqZGCRuT+kQz68uixxEgMW U/mZKlhsiYiCGK29zID1x7udrJXzpFZ+/TWw9wfzoIX1QRgLJbLaQPt2euf55+qnrNMR v8ewLg9JlWeEODF5AtHMaQVG4IsIMM84t4p0MKbpnxloghkcQ3uxQrdL8+zdNATFXLRo M4vQ== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4WGR26L5Z9ZxxWttH4uwrzi2TcHaiPQcv+ReZUSBVnTsHucmGG jBDNnJfxeNmLwT+rTEj1QI8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QalNhxHOTUUx0QHrszNKB/Z+nDqsDNaZf5Gj2b0exrA+w9feJxHBXravrH1lwUBqdZyf9y2Q== X-Received: by 10.31.131.145 with SMTP id f139mr2038815vkd.11.1510738679448; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:37:59 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.31.208.131 with SMTP id h125ls5712262vkg.12.gmail; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:37:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.31.189.69 with SMTP id n66mr198115vkf.6.1510738677982; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:37:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:37:57 -0800 (PST) From: sukender1@gmail.com To: lojban Message-Id: <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_7885_268871124.1510738677827" X-Original-Sender: sukender1@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_7885_268871124.1510738677827 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7886_1073060070.1510738677828" ------=_Part_7886_1073060070.1510738677828 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase: 1. CLL 1.1 "purists", who want to "throw away" what has been learned 2. The ones who want to "bug fix" CLL regarding to logic. 3. The ones who want to "upgrade" CLL. It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas would break up *many* things=20 (thus forcing to "re-learn" when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details.= =20 Somebody has clues on this? (And yes, each potential change would have to be evaluated on that=20 question.) Aside from that, I feel that the 2nd and 3rd group should agree to perform= =20 first common steps altogether. Isn't it the case? If not, why? la .sykyndyr. Le lundi 13 novembre 2017 16:44:47 UTC+1, And Rosta a =C3=A9crit : > > > > On 8 Nov 2017 12:54, "Timothy Lawrence" > wrote: > > *> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is no= t=20 > internally consistent,* > > What do you mean?=20 > > > CLL does not give complete and consistent rules for unambiguously mapping= =20 > Lojban sentences to logical forms. For folk for whom Lojban's purportedly= =20 > being a logical language is its paramount property, that is a big deal.= =20 > > > Is there something that documents this? > > > I don't know. It's certainly there in the mail archives and antique wiki= =20 > pages. Selpahi read through 25 years of email and wiki discussion in orde= r=20 > to understand the issues.=20 > > My sense is that the folk who care about logic are more interested simply= =20 > in mending the language rather than in creating documents that focus on= =20 > explaining in one place all the problems with CLL Lojban, but there may= =20 > well be newer expository stuff I don't know about. > > A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided into thos= e=20 > who care about logic and those who don't (and can therefore favour CLL=20 > Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into those who wa= nt=20 > to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logical issues= =20 > and those who think that if you're going to make any changes at all then= =20 > you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws in order to= =20 > make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two positions= =20 > weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL thoroughl= y=20 > against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might learn and= =20 > 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=20 > group. > > In my view, xorxes and selpahi should simply define bodies of candidate= =20 > new rules and changes and the rest of the BPFK or community or LLG should= =20 > vote on them by some suitably intelligent voting method. You could make i= t=20 > more democratic by allowing anyone to submit proposed changes, but I woul= d=20 > be inclined to vote for exactly whatever xorxes and selpahi propose. Thos= e=20 > innovations elected would be deemed to supersede CLL where there is=20 > incompatibility. And then textbook writers can write it up. Admittedly,= =20 > that already happened for xorlo, but nobody has yet textbooked it. > > --And. > --=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_7886_1073060070.1510738677828 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase:=
  1. CLL 1.1 "purists", who want to "throw awa= y" what has been learned
  2. The ones who want to "bug fi= x" CLL regarding to logic.
  3. The ones who want to "upgr= ade" CLL.
It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ide= as would break up many things (thus forcing to "re-learn= " when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clues on= this?
(And yes, each potential change would have to be evaluated= on that question.)

Aside from that, I feel that t= he 2nd and 3rd group should agree to perform first common steps altogether.= Isn't it the case? If not, why?

la .sykyndyr.=



Le lundi 13 novembre 2017 16:44:47 UTC+1, And = Rosta a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:


On 8 Nov 2017 12:= 54, "Timothy Lawrence" <timothy....@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.=C2=A0


Is there something that documents this?

I don&#= 39;t know. It's certainly there in the mail archives and antique wiki p= ages. Selpahi read through 25 years of email and wiki discussion in order t= o understand the issues.=C2=A0

My sense is that the folk who care about logic are more interested s= imply 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 th= e 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 t= urn divided into those who want to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban t= o 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 egre= gious design flaws in order to make the language much more user-friendly. E= ssentially the two positions weigh the effort invested by the few people wh= o 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 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.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_7886_1073060070.1510738677828-- ------=_Part_7885_268871124.1510738677827--