From sentto-44114-17315-1038714786-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Nov 30 19:53:44 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from n39.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.107]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ILAn-0008GV-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:53:37 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17315-1038714786-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2002 03:53:06 -0000 X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 1 Dec 2002 03:53:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 39441 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 03:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 03:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.136) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 03:53:00 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gB13qwc00572 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:52:58 +1100 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-Id: <6182E3BC-04E0-11D7-B360-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:52:58 +1100 Subject: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2802 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Heh. Rebellion. Cool. :-) Speaking ex cathedra as bypyfyky jatna : The reason I requested a mandate is that what we are proposing is way too important to be left to Board fiat. (In fact, I wanted membership approval; Bob then trumped me with seeking community approval.) If there is stuff in the proposal (and a lengthly and complex proposal it is) that people feel the need to object to, and a substantial number do, then we have not done our job right. And that's OK. We then go back to the drawing board until we do. The point is not that the board have its way or demonstrate leadership or whatever. The point is that the board do what the membership approves of it doing. I know why Bob is reluctant to redraft the document: it was painful to get to the point where any statement was draftable at all. (The major period of arguing, between me and xod, took a couple of weeks and got quite acrid, as you might expect.) But I'd rather we go through more birthing pains, than that we produce a plan unacceptable to the community. I will not accept being yelled at for doing a cabal effort, as I said on the wiki. But I'm not going to avoid that by operating in a cabal-like fashion. If the community feels strongly that they cannot accept this document in toto without further discussion, then I do encourage them --- ex cathedra as Commission Chair --- to vote no. Because only when the statement matches what the community wants can I feel it safe to continue with my work. That said, I happen to disagree with much of the specifics of what And proposed. Which shouldn't come as a surprise. But it is imperative that he be allowed to raise his views, and have them acknowledged. So let's start the discussion. Further responses. Prescriptivism. There is indeed a subtle shift going on in the position on prescriptivism. Bob has and continues to believe in untrammelled natural evolution; xod pretty much does as well. I believe (as Nick Nicholas, Lojbanist) that planned languages never evolve naturally, and (as board member) that many Lojbanists will want a body around to say whether their Lojban matches a 'standard'. These Lojbanists can profit from a body of language lawyers. The rest can ignore it. The BPFK can fill that role, although such a decision should be made at the time, not now; we are merely raising the possibility now. That's a status similar to English and prescriptivist, as Bob said; the prescriptivists will probably not have as much force as they do in the Esperanto Akademio (although even there, the Akademio frequently ends up having to catch up with changes wrought in other quarters.) The shift is that formerly, all calls for a Lojban Academy were repudiated. Now, it's being allowed that a Lojban Academy might be around for those who want one, as arbiters of 'standard' Lojban --- but not that it should have any binding force on the community. That is why the LLG is explicitly dissociating itself from any such body: it will not operate on LLG's behalf. Loglan. This topic proved controversial as well. As I have already said on jboske, I repudiate any notion of continuity between Loglan and Lojban. That repudiation is not LLG policy, and the Board did not change its position that Lojban *is* a continuation. But I do object to any meaningful offer of compromise towards Loglan. Individual Loglanists can come along to the BPFK --- as Lojbanists. My only interest in any proposal anyone makes to the BPFK is whether it betters the interests of Lojban as an autonomous language: whether it improves the chances of a rapprochment or not is immaterial to me. In short, I as BPFK Chair regard Loglan as irrelevant to my job (although I have no animus towards individual Loglanists coming along); and the baseline statement as I understand it is not contingent on anything that happens in or is said by the Loglan Institute --- which makes them irrelevant to our baseline as well. And: Experimental cmavo If a sufficient number agree that a cmavo deserves to be official and documented, so it should be --- but the phonotactic distinctiveness of cmavo that have not yet attained that status has served us well, and I would fain it continue to. If we are running out of CVV space, we can still go to xVV. (I don't want to make that statement right now; I'd rather wait till we see how many exptal cmavo are looking like becoming official, first.) If we run out of THAT, then we can add a delimited area of CVVV. I am not envisioning mass addition of new cmavo, though, and sanctioning going into CVVV implies that we will, I do not wish to be bound by that now. But if we decide to disambiguate through two cmavo, then it would be my understanding that both cmavo should be official. Whether future cmavo or not should be added is a matter for the post-baseline board. I don't like the implications of "we shall prescribe into being new cmavo", but I don't see why that determination needs to be made now. And: Zipf And, I hate to relay fundamentalist hatemail, but I have to. I have no confidence in a priori determinations of Zipf necessity, nor that we have enough usage yet to make such determinations even a posteriori. I will not consider frequency of usage as the only valid factor for introducing a new cmavo. I am not as confident as you about the 'saving syllables' imperative. I believe the fundamentalist imperative will trump the zipfean imperative (noone in Esperanto ever says "de l'" -- even though it is in fact officially sanctioned.) And I doubt you'll get many takers for No Change Without Consensus. So I stand my ground on this. And: Baseline I assume what you mean is, the baseline encompasses semantics as well as syntax. I whole-hearted agree, but I do not understand what the statement should concretely say to assert this, and I would have thought it was obvious anyway. And: Unintelligible cmavo We will go with the supplicatory model before we decide we don't know what a cmavo is. The current statement of the baseline does not allow cmavo deletion, because all cmavo are documented in CLL, one way or another. To erase cmavo would be a major techfix, and I am opposed to such ventures on principle. At the very most, if noone has ever ever ever used lau, I might accept turning lau into say xu'e, and releasing lau. But for a one syllable cmavo to be necessary for something Zipfeanly, it has to be something so urgent and obvious, I'd have thought the heavens would be clamoring for it by now. In my book, xa'o and mu'ei are the only ones even close to this (with mu'ei endangered by sumtcita ka'e); and they're not that close. -- Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian, University of Melbourne, Australia. http://www.opoudjis.net nickn@unimelb.edu.au "Most Byzantine historians felt they knew enough to use the optatives correctly; some of them were right." --- Harry Turtledove. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/