Received: from mail-vk0-f58.google.com ([209.85.213.58]:54077) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eFMgJ-0006Qa-40 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:06:29 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f58.google.com with SMTP id g11sf13073810vkd.12 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:06:22 -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=E8Dt0+J/J2wQGMY4e28Dyk7MBwfECJTDzgARlnO5dbg=; b=qFBw1bO4W4FDsoVRZnqT1Ooa9/l52d9DHkMWc6oy9dlKidDEW7/leHqqDM8b6M024v wXwVAtUbsh4G9ff914XkU6v0EUpSY/0Cq9G9ADAVdmq+2pbI4uqdbkRvXsTyBGcvLAEJ H6kBv60IhP1BM/WLSPcYIwiTH+VqFCjeCsAWJ+C5+u/wyJm6OqgmSzlkubVvUM9/a58+ jX8h7QrFm1me3F56KdSUD2Z/PLcWiLB2V81CzqB0MwhYoR6O/F/aq20dr9lR4PQB9lKt 89Uk3Ers6Ts56mYcypt58iM0Fanl6u8t01QMyzDPfTNUC+Wi2t8bPxS2dl2bGn4Ta4I4 X1YQ== 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=E8Dt0+J/J2wQGMY4e28Dyk7MBwfECJTDzgARlnO5dbg=; b=iFpfmwq1W6SOLgL216rindojrePW2VRH8I51uVqHI9ChfZQaVNKtwj77FKB3WQxU+J YB/RFj5gtMcVh6W4l36ZE1Y/dJcffaJX1TKH8FbbeoY3ne5YlEf7bzKwmFnrStvlLyJE dTfAt41B5lbCN3zMf043Y+xkL+eTRN/jK/ZryUT9QqF3qB6BMt+OzC2WKycydZ7gozJY 9OFf3GHyVZL1W9dwVWavQjPjM1N8I447X6RwDDvxLO0FmhzCfihOqcRI56JRIHlBsa4o CnJNOI0qIcM/BCuCuZVkZ3pG/1zFkSfXWMnE7avLfjWB26JjVURp3LqoUIDGGEPAzE37 Y4ag== 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=E8Dt0+J/J2wQGMY4e28Dyk7MBwfECJTDzgARlnO5dbg=; b=hkQCYAbg3NhijCld/P8Rf8WTvHdwHgHCGgCe9XkiN4OZoby/whvnuQqZmCNKuWcvHa 6mvCI+aLL6a3vtiuL03t4hvflgihc4J++Vkd4AvdRta+VjoKl1aXagYClDXnGBW/h5Db qvbae19zJ7zW/dIOSP+qCp1jUz9hmGKoieZmN/wdKQ2rFzqIGboDv04/E7yxWkE9gPrY qOob6ASMdjycL03KgnfHI8QkicCVMnjlf0Nn3NMSvgPEIEEL/Zdkphw1nlF/pU6+oSBv 6E4Y2SFlwl/N2UbBCiMXQ3df7E3XMV91+g4PQW4bURg18CzW9X2DfUMTu647cK4Ay6pB M5jQ== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX57E6+mbxaTr2WWweZmxmNDajN1iMv75thGCQuBqOn7vRfQ4LBh wnwC7imbVxTbM6yrrBfOZRY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbt9rt9AlgRNz3ajRMAsgZWh0+EpS7woysVgpIp9T/l0GkqtBj0vAEaALHpky/pfW4CjFKoQQ== X-Received: by 10.31.61.142 with SMTP id k136mr182919vka.5.1510848376081; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:06:16 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.176.69.7 with SMTP id r7ls509364uar.15.gmail; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:06:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.31.152.132 with SMTP id a126mr184858vke.10.1510848372685; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:06:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:06:11 -0800 (PST) From: guskant To: lojban Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> References: <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_3313_1048073419.1510848371961" X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@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_3313_1048073419.1510848371961 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3314_1012438117.1510848371962" ------=_Part_3314_1012438117.1510848371962 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mercredi 15 novembre 2017 09:38:00 UTC, Benoit Neil a =C3=A9crit : > > 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 perfor= m=20 > first common steps altogether. Isn't it the case? If not, why? > > la .sykyndyr. > =20 I regard that And Rosta is one of the great contributors for refining the= =20 theory behind Lojban, but he seems to take a distance from the current=20 active Lojban speakers. He once kindly gave me his thoughts on my=20 documetary film {lo vliraitru}, but I guess he doesn't know much about the= =20 current 2nd or 3rd group. I also take a distance from active speakers, but I still observe the=20 community from time to time. Here are what I understand according to the=20 observation. - Group 2 and Group 3 consist mostly of the same people. That is to say,=20 There are few people in Group 2 who are not in Group 3. Group 3 consists of= =20 some incompatible groups. The members of Group 3 have agreement on "bug=20 fix"-ing the CLL regarding to logic. - Group 1 should permit "adding grammatical mechanisms" without changing=20 the existing mechanism, because it is clearly permitted in Section 4.2 of= =20 the CLL. However, it seems to me that some people in Group 1 don't accept= =20 any new grammatical mechanisms. Now, Group 3, including Group 2, should "perform first common steps=20 altogether", but it isn't the case: there is poor progress in "bug=20 fix"-ing. I observed again the BPFK meeting, and recognized some points=20 that might be useful for considering the solution of problems. Summary. 1. Discussions for removing grammatical defects were more active than those= =20 for removing semantic defects. See Observations 1 and 3 below. 2. Discussions for removing semantic defects are always stopped at some=20 stage, no voting, and buried in many other topics of simple Q&As. See=20 Observations 3 and 4 below. 3. The Lojban Coders' Group has no intention of cooperating with BPFK. See= =20 Observation 2.1 below. Suggestion. Summary 1 and 2 suggest that we need an easy-to-use working system, where= =20 the members clearly see what to be put for voting, what to be discussed,=20 what are important, what are unimportant. Summary 3 suggests a problem more difficult to solve. Some members of BPFK= =20 are members of the Lojban Coders' Group. They don't distinguish missions of= =20 BPFK from voluntary services. I have no idea to change their mind. Observations. 1. Some defects in grammar were discussed and voting occurred. Examples: 1.1. YACC to PEG (discussion from 2015-11-17 to 2016-05-19) In order to remove some defects in grammar, it is necessary to make the=20 grammar written in PEG official, because YACC is less expressive than PEG= =20 [Note 1].=20 There was a stubborn resistant, but voting occurred. As a result, The=20 proposal that the grammar written in PEG should be official got the=20 majority. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/GN7F-pZXCgAJ However, I didn't see any official declaration about the result. 1.2. ([{lo KU} CU] [{ba brode} VAU]) (discussion from 2015-11-16 to 2016-03-15) Most members agreed that it should be official and voted for it. The result= =20 was declared: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/jRLrsM9WDQAJ https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK:_lo_nu_broda_ba_brode 2. Not all modifications to the grammar were put for voting. Examples: 2.1. {broda be ba brode} (discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06) It becomes ungrammatical under the agreement 1.2 above. The proposal of making it grammatical again by modifying some parts of the= =20 grammar was not accepted by some people including me, and the discussion=20 stopped without voting. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion However, the Lojban Coders' Group made it grammatical on Camxes on=20 2016-03-27, and it is still valid: https://github.com/lojban/ilmentufa/commit/e9f578607dcc1a1dddfa8f9132175f5b= c22c7b4d#diff-373e39fcf7056e72d5e0e4cdab4068f3 Even after the voting for the above proposal 1.1 of making PEG grammar=20 official, that Camxes is modified little by little without consulting BPFK,= =20 though called "camxes: standard" on the parser page: https://github.com/lojban/ilmentufa/commits/master/camxes.peg http://lojban.github.io/ilmentufa/camxes.html That fact shows that any decisions by BPFK have no influence to the=20 contents created by the Lojban Coders' Group, still the Lojban Coders'=20 Group is deceiving users into believing that their "camxes: standard"=20 reflected the official grammar. 2.2. {ni'o .i} (discussion from 2016-03-11 to 2016-03-30) The idea of making it grammatical was discussed and mostly agreed but no=20 voting occurred. Maybe the topic was not very important for the members of= =20 BPFK. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/nk049jbIBlQ/discussion 3. Defects in semantics are discussed but voting has never occurred. Examples: 3.1. Removing defects in meaning of {na} (discussion from 2016-06-23 to 2016-07-02) Most people agreed, some did not, and the discussion was stopped for no=20 reason. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/svR3FuAr0pA/discussion 3.2. meaning of {bridi} (discussions: from 2014-10-07 to 2014-10-09; from 2016-01-19 to 2016-05-30) It was once agreed by 2014-10-09 that {bridi} is relationship of meanings,= =20 not of symbols.=20 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/yChr3cGT1_Q/discussion It was discussed again in 2016, mostly agreed again, but no voting occurred= . https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/V1TNzpGE3XI/discussion 3.3. meaning of causation sumtcita (discussion from 2015-05-13 to 2015-06-17) https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/FdM1mYXfn3s/discussion It was discussed, the document was given, but no voting occurred. 4. There are many simple Q&A that don't require voting. Examples: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/CLJ21LkJ9jw/discussion https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/rHreOMRRpKs/discussion https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/wz5_QcTTC8U/discussion and many more. [Note 1] Such an example is explained at 35m15s of the documentary video: https://vimeo.com/190637628#t=3D2115s mu'o mi'e la guskant --=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_3314_1012438117.1510848371962 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mercredi 15 novembre 2017 09:38:00 UTC, Benoit = Neil a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
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&qu= ot; CLL.
It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas wou= ld 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 th= at question.)

Aside from that, I feel that the 2nd= and 3rd group should agree to perform first common steps altogether. Isn&#= 39;t it the case? If not, why?

la .sykyndyr.
=


=C2=A0
I re= gard that And Rosta is one of the great contributors for refining the theor= y behind Lojban, but he seems to take a distance from the current active Lo= jban speakers. He once kindly gave me his thoughts on my documetary film {l= o vliraitru}, but I guess he doesn't know much about the current 2nd or= 3rd group.

I also take a distance from active spe= akers, but I still observe the community from time to time. Here are what I= understand according to the observation.

- Group = 2 and Group 3 consist mostly of the same people. That is to say, There are = few people in Group 2 who are not in Group 3. Group 3 consists of some inco= mpatible groups. The members of Group 3 have agreement on "bug fix&quo= t;-ing the CLL regarding to logic.

- Group 1 shoul= d permit "adding grammatical mechanisms" without changing the exi= sting mechanism, because it is clearly permitted in Section 4.2 of the CLL.= However, it seems to me that some people in Group 1 don't accept any n= ew grammatical mechanisms.

Now, Group 3, including= Group 2, should "perform first common steps altogether", but it = isn't the case: there is poor progress in "bug fix"-ing. I ob= served again the BPFK meeting, and recognized some points that might be use= ful for considering the solution of problems.


=
Summary.
1. Discussions for removing grammatical defec= ts were more active than those for removing semantic defects. See Observati= ons 1 and 3 below.
2. Discussions for removing semantic defects a= re always stopped at some stage, no voting, and buried in many other topics= of simple Q&As. See Observations 3 and 4 below.
3. The Lojba= n Coders' Group has no intention of cooperating with BPFK. See Observat= ion 2.1 below.


Suggestion.
Summary 1 and 2 suggest that we need an easy-to-use working system, where= the members clearly see what to be put for voting, what to be discussed, w= hat are important, what are unimportant.
Summary 3 suggests a pro= blem more difficult to solve. Some members of BPFK are members of the Lojba= n Coders' Group. They don't distinguish missions of BPFK from volun= tary services. I have no idea to change their mind.


Observations.
1. Some defects in grammar were di= scussed and voting occurred.

Examples:
1= .1. YACC to PEG
(discussion from 2015-11-17 to 2016-05-19)
<= div>In order to remove some defects in grammar, it is necessary to make the= grammar written in PEG official, because YACC is less expressive than PEG = [Note 1].=C2=A0
There was a stubborn resistant, but voting occurr= ed. As a result, The proposal that the grammar written in PEG should be off= icial got the majority.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list= /A8qyiW7Uod8/GN7F-pZXCgAJ
However, I didn't see any official = declaration about the result.

1.2. ([{lo <nu (= =C2=B9broda VAU=C2=B9) KEI> KU} CU] [{ba brode} VAU])
(discuss= ion from 2015-11-16 to 2016-03-15)
Most members agreed that it sh= ould be official and voted for it. The result was declared:
https= ://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/jRLrsM9WDQAJ
htt= ps://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK:_lo_nu_broda_ba_brode


2. Not all modifications to the grammar were put for votin= g.

Examples:
2.1. {broda be ba brode}
(discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06)
It becomes ung= rammatical under the agreement 1.2 above.
The proposal of making = it grammatical again by modifying some parts of the grammar was not accepte= d by some people including me, and the discussion stopped without voting.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBNPI_A/discussion=

However, the Lojban Coders' Group made it gra= mmatical on Camxes on 2016-03-27, and it is still valid:
https://= github.com/lojban/ilmentufa/commit/e9f578607dcc1a1dddfa8f9132175f5bc22c7b4d= #diff-373e39fcf7056e72d5e0e4cdab4068f3
Even after the voting for = the above proposal 1.1 of making PEG grammar official, that Camxes is modif= ied little by little without consulting BPFK, though called "camxes: s= tandard" on the parser page:
https://github.com/lojban/ilmen= tufa/commits/master/camxes.peg
http://lojban.github.io/ilmentufa/= camxes.html

That fact shows that any decisions by = BPFK have no influence to the contents created by the Lojban Coders' Gr= oup, still the Lojban Coders' Group is deceiving users into believing t= hat their "camxes: standard" reflected the official grammar.

2.2. {ni'o .i}
(discussion from 2016-03-= 11 to 2016-03-30)
The idea of making it grammatical was discussed= and mostly agreed but no voting occurred. Maybe the topic was not very imp= ortant for the members of BPFK.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic= /bpfk-list/nk049jbIBlQ/discussion


3= . Defects in semantics are discussed but voting has never occurred.
Examples:
3.1. Removing defects in meaning of {na}
(= discussion from 2016-06-23 to 2016-07-02)
Most people agreed, som= e did not, and the discussion was stopped for no reason.
https://= groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/svR3FuAr0pA/discussion

3.2. meaning of {bridi}
(discussions: from 2014-10-07 to= 2014-10-09; from 2016-01-19 to 2016-05-30)
It was once agreed by= 2014-10-09 that {bridi} is relationship of meanings, not of symbols.=C2=A0=
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/yChr3cGT1_Q/discussi= on
It was discussed again in 2016, mostly agreed again, but no vo= ting occurred.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/V1TNzp= GE3XI/discussion

3.3. meaning of causation sumtcit= a
(discussion from 2015-05-13 to 2015-06-17)
https://gr= oups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/FdM1mYXfn3s/discussion
It was d= iscussed, the document was given, but no voting occurred.


4. There are many simple Q&A that don't requ= ire voting.
Examples:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic= /bpfk-list/CLJ21LkJ9jw/discussion
https://groups.google.com/d/top= ic/bpfk-list/rHreOMRRpKs/discussion
https://groups.google.com/d/t= opic/bpfk-list/wz5_QcTTC8U/discussion
and many more.

[Note 1]
Such an example is explained= at 35m15s of the documentary video:
https://vimeo.com/190637628#= t=3D2115s


mu'o mi'e la gusk= ant

--
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_3314_1012438117.1510848371962-- ------=_Part_3313_1048073419.1510848371961--