From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu May 13 16:51:45 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 63625 invoked from network); 13 May 2004 23:51:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 May 2004 23:51:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 May 2004 23:51:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BOPzK-0000s4-5m for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:51:42 -0700 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOPyd-0000lB-MU; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:50:59 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 May 2004 16:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.167.170.152] (helo=bowl.fysh.org ident=mail) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.32) id 1BOPyJ-0000kx-Sc for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:50:43 -0700 Received: from zefram by bowl.fysh.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BOPy9-00084f-00; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:50:29 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 00:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20040513235029.GA28237@fysh.org> References: <20040513213804.GG16333@fysh.org> <20040513214744.GA4461@digitalkingdom.org> <20040513222637.GI16333@fysh.org> <20040513224341.GF4461@digitalkingdom.org> <20040513231908.GL16333@fysh.org> <20040513232751.GM4461@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040513232751.GM4461@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-archive-position: 7825 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Zefram From: Zefram Reply-To: zefram@fysh.org Subject: [lojban] degrees of conservatism X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22288 Robin Lee Powell wrote: > you have more >sophistication in these areas than I was expecting. I've been lurking for a while. I've read through the English description of the entire grammar, perused the BNF, and skimmed through the yacc. I tend to retain a lot of what I read. >The language is strongly divided between people who consider the >current language definition sacrosanct and those who think that a clean >definition is more important than sticking with the status quo. My position on this: Lojban per se should be stable, in the sense that existing sentences should not change meaning. Subject to that constraint it seems reasonable to fix unintended consequences of the current grammar and implementation -- e.g., "zei" at the beginning of text is a ludicrous edge case and should obviously be prohibited regardless of what a strict reading of the grammar says. It also seems reasonable to a small amount of new stuff, where a need can reasonably be demonstrated (typically, by an experimental cmavo being used by a wide range of speakers). Outright changes should wait for son-of-Lojban. Surely from the experience we gain with Lojban we will learn many ways, not just one or two, in which it could have been designed better. When we have learned how to design (every part of) a logical language, it will be time for our descendants to design the next one. I'm interested in speculating on what will be in son-of-Lojban, but don't want to get carried away. Incidentally, I see the "zoi si" issue as intermediate between these two classes of change. Changing the behaviour of erase operators would affect current *spoken* usage, but not normal *written* usage, and so would have very little impact on the existing corpus of Lojban text. The suggestion I've seen of making a pause mandatory before cmevla and allowing "la" syllables within cmevla is also in this category. I think this type of change could be justified by a clear benefit to speakers, and (so you can gauge my conservatism) I'm very much undecided on whether the "zoi si" thing provides a sufficiently large benefit to justify it. -zefram