From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Jul 09 23:30:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 50261 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2006 06:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jul 2006 06:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2006 06:30:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzpDC-0007yY-6Z for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:25:42 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzpAw-0007vX-1g; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:23:22 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzpAU-0007v8-1Y for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:22:54 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzpAS-0007uz-TU for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:22:53 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id o1so24537nzf for ; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.22.10 with SMTP id 10mr5193153nzv; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [70.224.74.45]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id e1sm2469393nzd.2006.07.09.23.22.51; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44B1F177.30105@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:19:35 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44AF0325.2070709@gmail.com> <44AFD504.5090902@gmail.com> <925d17560607080924y2ff442bcqa6bddada11785a33@mail.gmail.com> <44B064B6.2000102@gmail.com> <925d17560607090642j320d13dcj98b78b6bf9408b5a@mail.gmail.com> <44B14F3B.4040308@gmail.com> <925d17560607091340r4ce6e7c9u5b9867fe22f73e6e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560607091340r4ce6e7c9u5b9867fe22f73e6e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12055 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Hugh O'Byrne From: Hugh O'Byrne Reply-To: hobyrne@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=rhKOJdmajMBVq0FtQihsR6_d4jIG7GJVWbHbcDcNokozOLn8nQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26481 Jorge Llambías wrote: > If what you want are official guidelines about a phonetic alphabet, then > I can hardly see any more authoritative guidelines than those provided > by the International Phonetic Association. They will be orders of magnitude > better than the guidelines that a small group of people with a cursory and > amateurish knowledge of phonetics can give you. A phonetic alphabet > is by its very nature not associated with a particular language, so there > is not much point in associating one with Lojban. Addressing the simpler point first: associating a phonetic alphabet with Lojban would put it head and shoulders above other languages, in the area of being accomodating to other languages (a good recommendation being better, in the community-formation sense, than no recommendation). ... Putting it that way, it seems perhaps this value is mostly cosmetic. Hm. I'll see if there's another way I can put it. As for the deeper point: perhaps I underestimated the size of the Lojban community, and the range and depth of expertise that comes from a larger population. As I've said before, I'm naive; I think Lojban's great, and so easily assume *lots* of others do, too. I asked about a quorum... >> It would be good to get input from as large a group as is sensible, but >> I agree the size of the group may be somewhat smaller than is usual for >> such issues. Is there a minimum size for a quorum? > > The LLG currently has 28 members: > > I'm not aware of any of them being an expert in phonetics, though I'm > sure at least a few of them know enough not to be dangerous. :) A group of qualified people *is* what's needed... maybe there doesn't exist such a group within easy reach. Apart from the IPA (if they *are* in easy reach). I have written an introductory e-mail to them; if there is interest in this forum, I can report on the dialog I have with them as it progresses. Or just milestones, or just when and how the dialog concludes. I'm a bit confused now; you indicated in another post that at least some responsibility has been passed from the LLG to the BPFK... which is which? >> ...[MEX]... > > There have been several discussions about it over the years, but I don't > remember any that might be particularly illuminating at this point. My > objection to MEX can be summarized as follows though: for simple > mathematical expressions, the ordinary grammar suffices, and for > complex expressions, the MEX machinery is inadequate anyway, > so what exactly is it good for? A challenge! Math is closer to my forte anyway... I shall work on this, and report back. But in a different thread. -- Good night, and have a rational tomorrow! mi'e .xius. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.