Message-Id: <199512190752.JAA16256@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 18 Dec 1995 23:48:54 -0600
Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      la lojban zasni
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 5253
Lines: 117

>> My amended recommendations for managing change after the baseline:
>>
>> 1. Add a formal version number to the name of lojban
>> <la papinomoi lojban> or <la pasosoxajoi lojban>
>>
>> "lojban 1.0 or lojban 1996"
>
>[Those are not grammatical as they stand, you probably want
>{la papinon lojban} or {la pasosoxav lojban}, or something like that.
>You could also have {la papinomoi jbobau}.]
>
>If there is ever a significant
>change then it would become necessary to have different names, but
>I don't think we should start crossing the bridge until we get to
>the river. Also, I would prefer not giving the language a name that
>makes it seem like it's a computer language, since it is nothing of
>the sort.

Agree that the confusion with computer languages is a problem. But, have
you ever read any science fiction by Phillip Jose Farmer? He used the name
Loglan 3 in one of his stories. There is also Babel-17 by Samuel Delaney.
You and other lojbanistani would enjoy that one, if you haven't read it
already. It is about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the very bad effects
of a constructed language on thinking, which are resolved when the new
release, Babel-18, comes out! Well written, too, for sci-fi.

>
>> 2. As part of the new version release, assure that there is a well-defined,
>> nonambiguous translation algorithm from la papinomoi lojban -> la papipamoi
>> lojban (or whatever). Thus all well-formed extant texts can be translated.
>
>I wonder how you would handle "changes" such as the normalizing of the
>use of {ri} in {le re nanmu cu prami le ri speni}. I expect most of the
>evolution of the language to be of this sort, getting a clearer
>understanding of already parser-grammatical Lojban. If rules of
>interpretation vary somewhat, it will be extremely hard, if at all
>possible, to "translate" from old texts.

I think perhaps the parser is less useful than it might be, if it allows
"legal" but as yet unexplored parts of the language to pass through.
Perhaps a second pass parser could label something like the use of {ri} as
*experimental* until it was well worked out. (I am *not* suggesting the
parser check for context!)

>> 3. Agree to a standard notation for lojban version specification; for
>> example, at the beginning of an utterance, the version of lojban to be used
>> could be specified.
>>
>> <.i ti gerna la papinomoi lojban>
>
>I would prefer to simply include the date. Besides, this is a problem for
>whoever is compiling the texts, not for the writer of a given text.

Including the date would be a reasonable approach.

>
>> 4. Emphasize that there will be considerable tolerance to experimental
>> additions/changes to lojban among the lojban community. But these will be
>> uncertified "slang" usages until & unless a broad and deep consensus builds
>> as to incorporation of the "slang" into the latest release of lojban. Such
>> changes will then be considered at the next meeting of the lojban academy
>
>This is probably not needed. If a community of speakers does develop, then
>usages will develop with it, with or without there being explicit tolerance.
>

Agree, but I'm attempting to promote high tolerance in the lojban community
about what usages are OK. Identification of ungrammatical usage is always
appreciated, at least by me.

>> 5. Maintain a list of recognized problems in lojban. As solutions appear,
>> propose them for inclusion in the next version of lojban. Maintain a
>> specification of "proposed, but still under consideration"
>> changes/additions/extensions as part of the formal definition of the
>> language.
>
>This must be done, of course. But most of the problems and solutions
>will probably not require as much modification of the grammar rules,
>as modification in how we interpret those rules.


There are solutions and then there are solutions. As you noted in your
discussion of ju'e+stag+bo vs stag+bo as logical connective, some
utterances can get unwieldy, and a shorter utterance may be preferable.
Same thing with <xoi> and fuzziness. This is the sort of thing I mean.

>
>> Perhaps John and lojbab are trying to do too much for the baseline. If we
>> build in a mechanism for eventual revision, then it will be easier for them
>> to get the first version done, as they will be less concerned about making
>> everything optimal.
>

>> If you are correct, then you and other speakers will adopt
>> the slang you propose, and eventually they will be considered at the every
>> five years lojban convention. I think lojbab should be the president of the
>> convention, and that the academy should consist of (maximum) 15-20 people.
>
>I would suggest that one of the rules be that the academy should deliberate
>only in Lojban. That would probably be the most effective barrier to change.
>

Except the BNF or parser formalisms are not in lojban (mex.text does not
seem to be very detailed about specification of algorithms). Other than
that, I like this idea. My main point is that a lojban academy would be
helpful in managing change in lojban.

-Steven


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413