Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of sukender@free.fr designates 212.27.42.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.27.42.3;
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:20:53 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <e7d4a3d5-4cd9-435d-bd3f-90c011172a10@googlegroups.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> <CACf3dPncGvkjQjbxL4MV_omG0R-e66V1CDcZFrt2hVU8iYWf0w@mail.gmail.com> <963393d6-a9f1-4232-be13-b4ee76eb69e1@googlegroups.com> <e7d4a3d5-4cd9-435d-bd3f-90c011172a10@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----NDN29NHDCPX81RQMY1HUXDFCQ5ZY1T"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: lojban@googlegroups.com,guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>,lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
From: Sukender <sukender@free.fr>
Message-ID: <A9240133-B357-4747-941D-BF28F3CCAE8C@free.fr>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
X-Spam_bar: --

------NDN29NHDCPX81RQMY1HUXDFCQ5ZY1T
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'll answer more in detail soon, but in the meantime, can you tell us more =
about "Group 3 consist[ing] of some incompatible groups"? Which subgroups, =
actually?
ki'e

la .sykyndyr.


Le 16 novembre 2017 17:06:11 CET, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> a =C3=A9c=
rit :
>
>
>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
>perform=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
>
>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
>
>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
>
>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
>
>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 <nu (=C2=B9broda VAU=C2=B9) KEI> 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/e9f578607dcc1a1dddfa8f9132175f5=
bc22c7b4d#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
>
>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 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.

--=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.

------NDN29NHDCPX81RQMY1HUXDFCQ5ZY1T
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body>I&#39;ll answer more in detail soon, but in the me=
antime, can you tell us more about &quot;Group 3 consist[ing] of some incom=
patible groups&quot;? Which subgroups, actually?<br>
ki&#39;e<br>
<br>
la .sykyndyr.<br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Le 16 novembre 2017 17:06:11 CET, guskan=
t &lt;gusni.kantu@gmail.com&gt; a =C3=A9crit :<blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 20=
4, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br /><br />Le mercredi 15 novembre 2017 09:38:00 UTC, Ben=
oit Neil a &eacute;crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">=
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase:=
</div><div><ol><li>CLL 1.1 &quot;purists&quot;, who want to &quot;throw awa=
y&quot; what has been learned<br /></li><li>The ones who want to &quot;bug =
fix&quot; CLL regarding to logic.<br /></li><li>The ones who want to &quot;=
upgrade&quot; CLL.</li></ol></div><div>It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd=
 ideas would break up <u><b>many</b></u> things (thus forcing to &quot;re-l=
earn&quot; when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clue=
s on this?</div><div>(And yes, each potential change would have to be evalu=
ated on that question.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Aside from that, I feel =
that the 2nd and 3rd group should agree to perform first common steps altog=
ether. Isn't it the case? If not, why?</div><div><br /></div><div>la .sykyn=
dyr.</div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>&nbsp;<=
/div><div>I regard that And Rosta is one of the great contributors for refi=
ning the theory behind Lojban, but he seems to take a distance from the cur=
rent active Lojban speakers. He once kindly gave me his thoughts on my docu=
metary film {lo vliraitru}, but I guess he doesn't know much about the curr=
ent 2nd or 3rd group.</div><div><br /></div><div>I also take a distance fro=
m active speakers, but I still observe the community from time to time. Her=
e are what I understand according to the observation.</div><div><br /></div=
><div>- Group 2 and Group 3 consist mostly of the same people. That is to s=
ay, There are few people in Group 2 who are not in Group 3. Group 3 consist=
s of some incompatible groups. The members of Group 3 have agreement on &qu=
ot;bug fix&quot;-ing the CLL regarding to logic.</div><div><br /></div><div=
>- Group 1 should permit &quot;adding grammatical mechanisms&quot; without =
changing the existing 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 new grammatical mechanisms.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, Grou=
p 3, including Group 2, should &quot;perform first common steps altogether&=
quot;, but it isn't the case: there is poor progress in &quot;bug fix&quot;=
-ing. I observed again the BPFK meeting, and recognized some points that mi=
ght be useful for considering the solution of problems.</div><div><br /></d=
iv><div><br /></div><div>Summary.</div><div>1. Discussions for removing gra=
mmatical defects were more active than those for removing semantic defects.=
 See Observations 1 and 3 below.</div><div>2. Discussions for removing sema=
ntic defects are always stopped at some stage, no voting, and buried in man=
y other topics of simple Q&amp;As. See Observations 3 and 4 below.</div><di=
v>3. The Lojban Coders' Group has no intention of cooperating with BPFK. Se=
e Observation 2.1 below.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Sugges=
tion.</div><div>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 b=
e discussed, what are important, what are unimportant.</div><div>Summary 3 =
suggests a problem more difficult to solve. Some members of BPFK are member=
s of the Lojban Coders' Group. They don't distinguish missions of BPFK from=
 voluntary services. I have no idea to change their mind.</div><div><br /><=
/div><div><br /></div><div>Observations.</div><div>1. Some defects in gramm=
ar were discussed and voting occurred.</div><div><br /></div><div>Examples:=
</div><div>1.1. YACC to PEG</div><div>(discussion from 2015-11-17 to 2016-0=
5-19)</div><div>In order to remove some defects in grammar, it is necessary=
 to make the grammar written in PEG official, because YACC is less expressi=
ve than PEG [Note 1].&nbsp;</div><div>There was a stubborn resistant, but v=
oting occurred. As a result, The proposal that the grammar written in PEG s=
hould be official got the majority.</div><div>https://groups.google.com/d/m=
sg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/GN7F-pZXCgAJ</div><div>However, I didn't see any o=
fficial declaration about the result.</div><div><br /></div><div>1.2. ([{lo=
 &lt;nu (&sup1;broda VAU&sup1;) KEI&gt; KU} CU] [{ba brode} VAU])</div><div=
>(discussion from 2015-11-16 to 2016-03-15)</div><div>Most members agreed t=
hat it should be official and voted for it. The result was declared:</div><=
div>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/A8qyiW7Uod8/jRLrsM9WDQAJ</div=
><div>https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK:_lo_nu_broda_ba_brode</div><div><br =
/></div><div><br /></div><div>2. Not all modifications to the grammar were =
put for voting.</div><div><br /></div><div>Examples:</div><div>2.1. {broda =
be ba brode}</div><div>(discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06)</div><div=
>It becomes ungrammatical under the agreement 1.2 above.</div><div>The prop=
osal of making it grammatical again by modifying some parts of the grammar =
was not accepted by some people including me, and the discussion stopped wi=
thout voting.</div><div>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/kXZ5aBN=
PI_A/discussion</div><div><br /></div><div>However, the Lojban Coders' Grou=
p made it grammatical on Camxes on 2016-03-27, and it is still valid:</div>=
<div>https://github.com/lojban/ilmentufa/commit/e9f578607dcc1a1dddfa8f91321=
75f5bc22c7b4d#diff-373e39fcf7056e72d5e0e4cdab4068f3</div><div>Even after th=
e voting for the above proposal 1.1 of making PEG grammar official, that Ca=
mxes is modified little by little without consulting BPFK, though called &q=
uot;camxes: standard&quot; on the parser page:</div><div>https://github.com=
/lojban/ilmentufa/commits/master/camxes.peg</div><div>http://lojban.github.=
io/ilmentufa/camxes.html</div><div><br /></div><div>That fact shows that an=
y decisions by BPFK have no influence to the contents created by the Lojban=
 Coders' Group, still the Lojban Coders' Group is deceiving users into beli=
eving that their &quot;camxes: standard&quot; reflected the official gramma=
r.</div><div><br /></div><div>2.2. {ni'o .i}</div><div>(discussion from 201=
6-03-11 to 2016-03-30)</div><div>The idea of making it grammatical was disc=
ussed and mostly agreed but no voting occurred. Maybe the topic was not ver=
y important for the members of BPFK.</div><div>https://groups.google.com/d/=
topic/bpfk-list/nk049jbIBlQ/discussion</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></d=
iv><div>3. Defects in semantics are discussed but voting has never occurred=
.</div><div>Examples:</div><div>3.1. Removing defects in meaning of {na}</d=
iv><div>(discussion from 2016-06-23 to 2016-07-02)</div><div>Most people ag=
reed, some did not, and the discussion was stopped for no reason.</div><div=
>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/svR3FuAr0pA/discussion</div><d=
iv><br /></div><div>3.2. meaning of {bridi}</div><div>(discussions: from 20=
14-10-07 to 2014-10-09; from 2016-01-19 to 2016-05-30)</div><div>It was onc=
e agreed by 2014-10-09 that {bridi} is relationship of meanings, not of sym=
bols.&nbsp;</div><div>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/yChr3cGT1=
_Q/discussion</div><div>It was discussed again in 2016, mostly agreed again=
, but no voting occurred.</div><div>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-=
list/V1TNzpGE3XI/discussion</div><div><br /></div><div>3.3. meaning of caus=
ation sumtcita</div><div>(discussion from 2015-05-13 to 2015-06-17)</div><d=
iv>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/FdM1mYXfn3s/discussion</div>=
<div>It was discussed, the document was given, but no voting occurred.</div=
><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>4. There are many simple Q&amp;A th=
at don't require voting.</div><div>Examples:</div><div>https://groups.googl=
e.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/CLJ21LkJ9jw/discussion</div><div>https://groups.goo=
gle.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/rHreOMRRpKs/discussion</div><div>https://groups.g=
oogle.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/wz5_QcTTC8U/discussion</div><div>and many more.=
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>[Note 1]</div><div>Such an exa=
mple is explained at 35m15s of the documentary video:</div><div>https://vim=
eo.com/190637628#t=3D2115s</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>mu'o=
 mi'e la guskant</div></div>

<p></p>
</blockquote></div></body></html>

<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 />

------NDN29NHDCPX81RQMY1HUXDFCQ5ZY1T--