From 34puxSwgJBnsqcdmsZsnflZhk.bnlkniaZmfnnfkdfqntor.bnl@groups.bounces.google.com Mon Mar 29 23:36:46 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <34puxSwgJBnsqcdmsZsnflZhk.bnlkniaZmfnnfkdfqntor.bnl@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NwV44-0005v9-8v for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:36:45 -0700 Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1sf9588704gwb.16 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:36:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=XOpaKkP9OdJGzLk7pz5e477EmgsyDFx2a0nW3YzWNM4=; b=LsL8mBA131l76wgJauGDIJ+Lh3wOjCNjevHYNPTbbcLyFhovFH3x+hPDFFcUdyLM0m HSXk3vix+RIg53og3DnHsZNbtLhmmzleRIS6bsiqbGCj4PysEhLYxunYeHK0IFrdXgNn wzWnjqEF4xGl1QnaDZ4rryKexYolFlppXWaj0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=4ZLvNtofTBJri7/eQi7mMU3SsHHsAYIkkSzbg4q52DWdEWxvWLUTjjKqSyVt9EQ5gq kapgiIrgwTT0H53X/CbMxO9y8pvp2JAaKVI+6l4TebfR4EF6UkDr2DtNhnaWwxuzlwe8 qLEkPKrhSpBrGdJMCOPFFGTAJE6HMrkyd2Y+Q= Received: by 10.91.121.9 with SMTP id y9mr214734agm.33.1269930978678; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:36:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.87.74.30 with SMTP id b30ls318697fgl.3.p; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.87.40.24 with SMTP id s24mr261945fgj.3.1269930975864; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.136.79 with SMTP id q15mr354333bkt.13.1269929667858; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.136.79 with SMTP id q15mr354332bkt.13.1269929667825; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f177.google.com (mail-wy0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si6060693bkc.1.2010.03.29.23.14.26; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.177; Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1395134wyf.22 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.21.19 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <414121.54710.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <2320FCB7-86FE-4E30-9F24-DAD6E40024D7@evertype.com> <5BD9338A-1033-49E9-9A75-49046469DE95@gmail.com> <702226df1003290731i3cbaeb3fs9db2d49a667273b1@mail.gmail.com> <44AE9DF1-8DD8-4134-895C-054AA27AE1EC@gmail.com> <702226df1003290810r9685560v7ef251bdfb421911@mail.gmail.com> <4BB0D4DF.2070501@gmail.com> <702226df1003291006o242c37a8q6bc5ea53b6e6377d@mail.gmail.com> <23298cb41003291406x5dc8a4faub2d8d21693f9c5fc@mail.gmail.com> <414121.54710.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:14:25 +0200 Received: by 10.216.163.13 with SMTP id z13mr741649wek.188.1269929666482; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <23298cb41003292314q6a4c6029u90c80f5dda2a2836@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] la .alis. From: Remo Dentato To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdentato@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: rdentato@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/62f96e395a91e500 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/e27ae60b02b294ce Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636426519a9134e0482fe8abb --001636426519a9134e0482fe8abb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:51 AM, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > > remod, are you seriously suggesting that a competing orthography is the > answer to BPFK stagnation? > What I'm suggesting is that either the BPFK takes some decision in moving forward or stop bashing any attempts to try something different. The topic of "writing lojban" is just one of the many. About typography/ortography/alphabet and the like it is out of question that plain lojban text is "ugly" at the first view and difficult to the eye as there is no clear delimiter for the parts of the sentences. When I printed "lo nu binxo" ( http://picasaweb.google.it/rdentato/LoNuBinxo#5395156010337642754) for myself I tried to make the dots before "i" a little bit larger to have some more immediate visual hook it was surely not an elegant solution, I wish there was some better solution. We have centuries and centuries of work on making texts more readable and appealing, I can't really understand the argument that adding capital letters, accents comma would be "non-lojbanic". It seems an attempt to close the debate. Especially if (as it seems) the proposal is to have something optional. I don't see the problem with "la .Alis." being the same thing as "la .alis." and I never liked the use of capital letters instead of accents. It's really ironic that Lojban born because Loglan was proprietary and not open to contribution. It seems to me that we are now in the same situation with the difference that it's not even clear who is holding things back. Personally, that is what make my interest for lojban decrease at an exponential rate. I'll might come back to it one day but I become a little tired of seeing that those that are in charge of the language seem not really interested in making it evolve. To me, Lojban is very interesting but would still require work to appeal more people on the other hand it seems that BPFK and LLG (it's really difficult to understand who is who and who does what) are only interested in preserve it in its current form. Lojban needs more speakers/writers, because a language is measured by the number of people can use it, otherwise is just a nice academic exercise. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer on wheter I could put the PDF of the revised copy of CLL on the wiki. It has been months now and I don't even know if the they met and deliberated on the matter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --001636426519a9134e0482fe8abb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:51 AM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:

remod, are you seriously suggesting tha= t=20 a=A0competing orthography is the answer to BPFK stagnation?=A0
=
=A0
What I'm suggesting is that eith= er the BPFK takes some decision in moving forward or stop bashing any attem= pts to try something different.=A0 The topic of "writing lojban" = is just one of the many.

About typography/ortography/alphabet and the like it is out of question= that plain lojban text is "ugly" at the first view and difficult= to the eye as there is no clear delimiter for the parts of the sentences.= =A0 When I printed "lo nu binxo" (http://picasaweb.google.it/r= dentato/LoNuBinxo#5395156010337642754)=A0 for myself=A0 I tried to make= the dots before "i" a little bit larger to have some more immedi= ate visual hook it was surely not an elegant solution, I wish there was som= e better solution.

We have centuries and centuries of work on making texts more readable a= nd appealing, I can't really understand the argument that adding capita= l letters, accents comma would be "non-lojbanic". It seems an att= empt to close the debate.=A0 Especially if (as it seems) the proposal is to= have something optional.

I don't see the problem with "la .Alis." being the same t= hing as "la .alis." and I never liked the use of capital letters = instead of accents.

It's really ironic that Lojban born because = Loglan was proprietary and not open to contribution. It seems to me that we= are now in the same situation with the difference that it's not even c= lear who is holding things back.

Personally, that is what make my interest for lojban decrease at an exp= onential rate. I'll might come back to it one day but I become a little= tired of seeing that those that are in charge of the language seem not rea= lly interested in making it evolve.=A0 To me, Lojban is very interesting bu= t would still require work to appeal more people on the other hand it seems= that BPFK and LLG (it's really difficult to understand who is who and = who does what) are only interested in preserve it in its current form.=A0 L= ojban needs more speakers/writers, because a language is measured by the nu= mber of people can use it, otherwise is just a nice academic exercise.

BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer on wheter I could put the PDF = of the revised copy of CLL on the wiki. It has been months now and I don= 9;t even know if the they met and deliberated on the matter.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--001636426519a9134e0482fe8abb--