From 39aWzSwoJBpoMOIGC6BLCMAG4CF.6IGFID54HAIIAF8ALIOJM.6IG@groups.bounces.google.com Wed Mar 31 12:44:16 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f160.google.com ([209.85.211.160]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <39aWzSwoJBpoMOIGC6BLCMAG4CF.6IGFID54HAIIAF8ALIOJM.6IG@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1Nx3pi-0002Kh-T7 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:44:15 -0700 Received: by ywh32 with SMTP id 32sf393052ywh.28 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:44:04 -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-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:received:message-id:subject: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=SZPJn55W1hbhe4gnTufaBMbM93+LXq9sgK9cyCh+npY=; b=jK5QKWBCYmKYJyk6VinU73vSz7W/43p6lXFO7XrIbt2fiijK8fpXQazdnz8G1ATwuD y7CgZhcuo74KJP2/FMhmnqKuqxkz1e304esaaNVrif2nQrimO0dV/DfankQmPtWBRIih vlr/+j1kRy4KSP/CBa3Z9zyhrzEhBfZ118vyk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=rbZpXyfZ/FW5G16h+LJF9BeRy8iF5yyn40nzXijylxjG21T7EoY8FAZ45YlXhJHN1W flNMfSeQ4rkSaiJ5SrmGRhP9/SPpdQvtx7pNmQWZLM2LzGwGvO9vBnyUaTbBQXhuhJ9H 39KVR9H7CbJ7TkfhQe9io2lQY80nDc5g4UIH8= Received: by 10.100.234.18 with SMTP id g18mr3208anh.62.1270064629953; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.91.7 with SMTP id t7ls160231agl.1.p; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.20.28 with SMTP id 28mr619283agt.7.1270064628501; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.20.28 with SMTP id 28mr619282agt.7.1270064628183; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f219.google.com (mail-gx0-f219.google.com [209.85.217.219]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si529886gxk.5.2010.03.31.12.43.47; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of suomichris@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.219 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.219; Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so317865gxk.0 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.5.20 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BB3921C.50308@lojban.org> References: <4BB3921C.50308@lojban.org> From: Christopher Doty Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:23 -0700 Received: by 10.101.131.15 with SMTP id i15mr359998ann.13.1270064624166; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Summary: Cultural fu'ivla To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of suomichris@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.219 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=suomichris@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: suomichris@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/6edf3f52e6f491ba X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/e08f7b4a0e76560e Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c92421c3e88004831df608 --001636c92421c3e88004831df608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:19, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Christopher Doty wrote: > >> I just wanted to sort of condense what we have been talking about here in >> a more compact fashion. Essentially, the idea would be to (I've ordered the >> list logically, not temporally): >> >> 1) Chuck the cultural gismu (this seems to be an idea that has been around >> for awhile anyway, we just need good replacements). >> >> 2) Develop a new, much smaller set of gismu to cover things that were >> previously included in the cultural gismu, such as reflecting >> language/cultural/nationality in some respect. >> >> 3) For countries/territories: develop fu'ivla for the member states of the >> UN, along with other "important" areas (importance being based on an as-yet >> undetermined criterion). >> >> 4) For languages: develop fu'ivla based on the ISO code for the languages >> present in the 639-1 set of codes, but using their code as of the 639-3 >> revision. (I think it would be cool to use the language family codes, as >> presented here ( >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-2#Collective_language_codes), when >> filling out the fu'ivla.) >> >> 5) For religions: develop gismu that cover the world's major religions >> (probably with some artificial cut-off for number of adherents), (along with >> another couple gismu for "atheist" and something like "native >> beliefs/practices of x2"?) >> >> 6) For land masses: develop fu'ivla for either the seven continents as >> conventionally understood, or else for the major tectonic plates (which >> largely correlates with the continents, but leads to a bit more precision >> with a few more fu'ivla). If we did go the plate route, we'd have to again >> have some sort of artificial cut-off TBD. >> >> Hopefully that summary accurately represents the discussion thus far. >> >> Since it seems like this project has stagnated in the past, >> > > It has not stagnated. It has been rejected. It will continue to be > rejected. > > The gismu are baselined. The baseline isn't going to be changed because > someone doesn't like something or thinks it could have been done better. We > are more than 15 years past the point where people were willing to even > consider changing the list. > > We officially and expressly DON'T want the language redesigned by fiat, in > whole or in part. This isn't supposed to be a language design project any > more, but a language-using project. (Bearing in mind that the byfy work > defining the cmavo has never been completed, but there is a strong bias even > there against change). > > The goal is to turn the baselined language over to users, who will *use* > the language, which will then evolve according to actual usage. There will > cease to be a language prescription, in favor of language description. > > If people need a gismu that doesn't exist, they can of course invent one ad > hoc, though the intent is that they invent fu'ivla, and only a demonstrably > useful fu'ivla would ever be made into a gismu (there is provision that > assigning gismu might be done officially at some future point, but only > after seeing a pattern of actual usage). > > Fu'ivla space is up for grabs, and people can choose to systematically > create fu'ivla. If you limit your project to that, I certainly won't fight > it (but I don't promise to ever support it either). > > > > But, > >> before I do any of that, I'd like to make sure that a) people seem >> generally of the opinion that some change like this is probably a good idea, >> > > 20 years ago, it might have been. Not now. > > My apologies if this comes across as rude, but I don't know how to put it > any more politely. The question has been repeatedly debated, and even > though there have always been people VERY unhappy with the cultural gismu, > whatever may be wrong with them is not important enough to change LLG's > fundamental philosophy about the language ("strong baseline" and "let usage > decide"). I do not find it particularly rude, and am happy that I can think about this as it would be a waste of time. Am I missing some part of the site that would have let me know that this idea has already been proposed and rejected over and over? Everything I have seen there makes it look like it is something that has been, and still is, ongoing. I must say I find the disconnect between the claims of cultural neutral and violation of those claims in the very vocabulary of the language to be completely weird. Illogical, even. -- 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. --001636c92421c3e88004831df608 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:19, Bob LeChe= valier=A0<lojbab@= lojban.org>=A0wrote:
Christopher Doty wrote:
I just wanted to sort of condense what we have been talking about here in a= more compact fashion. =A0Essentially, the idea would be to (I've order= ed the list logically, not temporally):

1) Chuck the cultural gismu = (this seems to be an idea that has been around for awhile anyway, we just n= eed good replacements).

2) Develop a new, much smaller set of gismu to cover things that were p= reviously included in the cultural gismu, such as reflecting language/cultu= ral/nationality in some respect.

3) For countries/territories: devel= op fu'ivla for the member states of the UN, along with other "impo= rtant" areas (importance being based on an as-yet undetermined criteri= on).

4) For languages: develop fu'ivla based on the ISO code for the lan= guages present in the 639-1 set of codes, but using their code as of the 63= 9-3 revision. =A0(I think it would be cool to use the language family codes= , as presented here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_6= 39-2#Collective_language_codes), when filling out the fu'ivla.)

5) For religions: develop gismu that cover the world's major religi= ons (probably with some artificial cut-off for number of adherents), (along= with another couple gismu for "atheist" and something like "= ;native beliefs/practices of x2"?)

6) For land masses: develop fu'ivla for either the seven continents= as conventionally understood, or else for the major tectonic plates (which= largely correlates with the continents, but leads to a bit more precision = with a few more fu'ivla). =A0If we did go the plate route, we'd hav= e to again have some sort of artificial cut-off TBD.

Hopefully that summary accurately represents the discussion thus far.
Since it seems like this project has stagnated in the past,

It has not stagnated. =A0It has been rejected. =A0It will = continue to be rejected.

The gismu are baselined. =A0The baseline isn't going to be changed = because someone doesn't like something or thinks it could have been don= e better. =A0We are more than 15 years past the point where people were wil= ling to even consider changing the list.

We officially and expressly DON'T want the language redesigned by f= iat, in whole or in part. =A0This isn't supposed to be a language desig= n project any more, but a language-using project. =A0(Bearing in mind that = the byfy work defining the cmavo has never been completed, but there is a s= trong bias even there against change).

The goal is to turn the baselined language over to users, who will *use= * the language, which will then evolve according to actual usage. =A0There = will cease to be a language prescription, in favor of language description.=

If people need a gismu that doesn't exist, they can of course inven= t one ad hoc, though the intent is that they invent fu'ivla, and only a= demonstrably useful fu'ivla would ever be made into a gismu (there is = provision that assigning gismu might be done officially at some future poin= t, but only after seeing a pattern of actual usage).

Fu'ivla space is up for grabs, and people can choose to systematica= lly create fu'ivla. =A0If you limit your project to that, I certainly w= on't fight it (but I don't promise to ever support it either).


> But,
before I do any of that, I'd like to make sure that a) people seem gene= rally of the opinion that some change like this is probably a good idea,

20 years ago, it might have been. =A0Not now.

My apologies if this comes across as rude, but I don't know how to = put it any more politely. =A0The question has been repeatedly debated, and = even though there have always been people VERY unhappy with the cultural gi= smu, whatever may be wrong with them is not important enough to change LLG&= #39;s fundamental philosophy about the language ("strong baseline"= ; and "let usage decide").

I do not find it particularly rude, and am happy that I= can think about this as it would be a waste of time. =A0Am I missing some = part of the site that would have let me know that this idea has already bee= n proposed and rejected over and over? =A0Everything I have seen there make= s it look like it is something that has been, and still is, ongoing.

I must say I find the disconnect between the claims of = cultural neutral and violation of those claims in the very vocabulary of th= e language to be completely weird. =A0Illogical, even.

--
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.
--001636c92421c3e88004831df608--