Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ciuak.prog@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::435 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::435;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <18776223.2757089.1586622570213.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <18776223.2757089.1586622570213@mail.yahoo.com> <c29378ec-fcee-40c8-8c42-b0a807d85ddf@googlegroups.com>
 <CACtk4+C8FqtmCh22YyPcRPiAecFLf8TuHkz8ru-JiHKbbjkceg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6fe62be6-21b6-40b7-98b6-0f4e0072df47@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+BOX=1HLsDPpYnnF4F5udZYZW1L9n87bhWw6t4rwYzKhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8eb60e09-2aa3-4e14-b37e-f716ea06ecfe@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+CQVWmW8_=i-t4nT01vLg9QsXebhCYGip8NqkvyD6enhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1137a1b7-cd6f-4c7c-b2cc-f38e8b4abb3f@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+D0NF3ghV8wzD=oOv+ijrSiuNH3pgg5Ctn3JDMEO4nQxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e00859fc-e0cf-44f2-9c1a-c6ae178f647e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <e00859fc-e0cf-44f2-9c1a-c6ae178f647e@googlegroups.com>
From: uakci <ciuak.prog@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 00:52:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CACtk4+D7EusQg-W1=0d0919aGZgVKVO2043A4ogiostyWXM5fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Why Lojban fails
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068292e05a30bb633"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.6
X-Spam_score_int: -25
X-Spam_bar: --

--00000000000068292e05a30bb633
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(snip)

> It doesn't really work that well, so there is a problem.
>>
> If the thing is speakable then it works.
>

But do we want to go with the bare minimum? Since we've already got it, why
not advance?


>
>> Unless this is not what one was intending it to work.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I grok this sentence. As I've said before, there's the issu=
e
>> of overengineering. Sure, I can speak the bloated variants of Lojban, bu=
t
>> why should I if there are better solutions at reach? (Zantufa, Toaq, Xor=
ban
>> are all examples of great non-overengineered work.)
>>
>
> Some person may say: the first Hilbert operator is bi'u, the second one i=
s
> lo'o'o'o'o'u and then another person would come and say: no, you misread
> Hilbert so that's how I think it should work and hereby I propose
> lo'o'o'o'ou
>
> I don't know what is better here and who are the judges.
>

Time is the perfect judge. The Loglandic adage =E2=80=98Usage will decide=
=E2=80=99 shows
this very well: some features surface and some sink to the bottom. But
because of things like the Big Freeze and the covert stigmatization of
deviations from the official dialect that still lasts, there's no room for
that happening. Instead, those who have the good ideas have to restrict
themselves to using them in their private circles because any attempt at
bringing them into the official language are met with dissent and dismay.


> Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it's stability.
>

Latin, too, is a stable language. But it's been long abandoned, for Romance
languages had sprung about. The only reason some people learn Latin is for
academic purposes, since it has a great share in the body of scientific
works our world has produced.

Do you think Lojban deserves the sort of treatment that languages we
already know are quite dead get?


>
>
>> And since Lojban is 35 years old and itself heavily borrowing from a
>> 65-year-old language, it might be time to *remove* rather than *amend*. =
One
>> example: solpahi's connective system works just as well as the current o=
ne
>> =E2=80=94 which may have had to be this way due to YACC's limitations =
=E2=80=94 but offers
>> less bloat.
>>
>
> I feel no bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.
>

Languages change regardless of backward compatibility. No solution is truly
future-proof; the only approach that guarantees success is to embrace
change. Dismissing change on grounds of there being change in the first
place is, in my opinion, hilariously wrong =E2=80=94 then if you're so pass=
ionate
about keeping the language in its current form, why not declare it to be a
success and, most importantly, move on to more important things in our
lives?


> So if we want simplicity
>>
>
> Then we should speak English. Or toki pona (depending on the meaning of
> the word "simple")
>

English is far from simple, as you might have learned.

Please don't just derail the conversation like that. We're talking about
improving Lojban, not replacing it with Toki Pona or Georgian.


>
>
>> and straightforwardness, why don't we choose simplicity and
>> straightforwardness if, again, it's within arm's reach?
>>
>
> Because there are also aspiring students within arm's reach.
>

The aspiring students who are within arm's reach don't know what they're
setting themselves up for.

If I'd known I'd be joining a community like the one we have which gives
the language in its current form this much phrase, I'd never have taken up
the offer.


> You learned something, good to you.
>

Please leave the condescending comments on your side of the screen.


> Now create a copy of the database and test your crud operations on it so
> that new learners can have python2 final version now and forever.
>

Isn't that=E2=80=A6 like=E2=80=A6 the opposite of what I want and the exact=
 statement of
what you want?

=E2=80=94 M=E1=BB=89 H=E1=BB=8Fash=C4=AB j=C3=AD ka.

--=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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/CACtk4%2BD7EusQg-W1%3D0d0919aGZgVKVO2043A4ogiostyWXM5fQ%40mail.gmail=
.com.

--00000000000068292e05a30bb633
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>(snip) <br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><div>It doesn&#39;t really work that well, so there is a problem.<br></di=
v></div></div></blockquote><div>If the thing is speakable then it works. <b=
r></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But do we want to go with th=
e bare minimum? Since we&#39;ve already got it, why not advance?<br></div><=
div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20=
4,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Unless this is not what =
one was intending it to work.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I=
&#39;m not sure I grok this sentence. As I&#39;ve said before, there&#39;s =
the issue of overengineering. Sure, I can speak the bloated variants of Loj=
ban, but why should I if there are better solutions at reach? (Zantufa, Toa=
q, Xorban are all examples of great non-overengineered work.)</div></div></=
div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Some person may say: the first Hilbert=
 operator is bi&#39;u, the second one is lo&#39;o&#39;o&#39;o&#39;o&#39;u a=
nd then another person would come and say: no, you misread Hilbert so that&=
#39;s how I think it should work and hereby I propose lo&#39;o&#39;o&#39;o&=
#39;ou</div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t know what is better here and wh=
o are the judges.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Time is the p=
erfect judge. The Loglandic adage =E2=80=98Usage will decide=E2=80=99 shows=
 this very well: some features surface and some sink to the bottom. But bec=
ause of things like the Big Freeze and the covert stigmatization of deviati=
ons from the official dialect that still lasts, there&#39;s no room for tha=
t happening. Instead, those who have the good ideas have to restrict themse=
lves to using them in their private circles because any attempt at bringing=
 them into the official language are met with dissent and dismay.<br></div>=
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it&#39;s stabi=
lity.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Latin, too, is a stable l=
anguage. But it&#39;s been long abandoned, for Romance languages had sprung=
 about. The only reason some people learn Latin is for academic purposes, s=
ince it has a great share in the body of scientific works our world has pro=
duced.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you think Lojban deserves the sort of tr=
eatment that languages we already know are quite dead get?<br></div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>And since Lojban =
is 35 years old and itself heavily borrowing from a 65-year-old language, i=
t might be time to *remove* rather than *amend*. One example: solpahi&#39;s=
 connective system works just as well as the current one =E2=80=94 which ma=
y have had to be this way due to YACC&#39;s limitations =E2=80=94 but offer=
s less bloat. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I feel no =
bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.=C2=A0</div><=
/div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Languages change regardless of backwa=
rd compatibility. No solution is truly future-proof; the only approach that=
 guarantees success is to embrace change. Dismissing change on grounds of t=
here being change in the first place is, in my opinion, hilariously wrong =
=E2=80=94 then if you&#39;re so passionate about keeping the language in it=
s current form, why not declare it to be a success and, most importantly, m=
ove on to more important things in our lives?<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><div>So if we want simplicity </div></div></div></blockquote><div><=
br></div><div>Then we should speak English. Or toki pona (depending on the =
meaning of the word &quot;simple&quot;)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>English is far from simple, as you might have learned.</div><div><=
br></div><div>Please don&#39;t just derail the conversation like that. We&#=
39;re talking about improving Lojban, not replacing it with Toki Pona or Ge=
orgian.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204=
);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>and st=
raightforwardness, why don&#39;t we choose simplicity and straightforwardne=
ss if, again, it&#39;s within arm&#39;s reach?</div></div></div></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>Because there are also aspiring students within arm&#=
39;s reach.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The aspiring studen=
ts who are within arm&#39;s reach don&#39;t know what they&#39;re setting t=
hemselves up for.</div><div><br></div><div>If I&#39;d known I&#39;d be join=
ing a community like the one we have which gives the language in its curren=
t form this much phrase, I&#39;d never have taken up the offer.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div>You learned something, good to you.<br></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Please leave the condescending comments on your side of t=
he screen.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Now create a copy of the database and tes=
t your crud operations on it so that new learners can have python2 final ve=
rsion now and forever.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Isn&#39;=
t that=E2=80=A6 like=E2=80=A6 the opposite of what I want and the exact sta=
tement of what you want?</div><div><br></div><div>=E2=80=94 M=E1=BB=89 H=E1=
=BB=8Fash=C4=AB j=C3=AD ka.<br></div></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 view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CACtk4%2BD7EusQg-W1%3D0d0919aGZgVKVO2043A4ogiostyWXM5fQ%4=
0mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.goog=
le.com/d/msgid/lojban/CACtk4%2BD7EusQg-W1%3D0d0919aGZgVKVO2043A4ogiostyWXM5=
fQ%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--00000000000068292e05a30bb633--