From 3-KG6SwoJBqASUOMICHRISGMAIL.COMLOJBANGOOGLEGROUPS.COM@groups.bounces.google.com Mon Apr 05 19:53:06 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3-KG6SwoJBqASUOMICHRISGMAIL.COMLOJBANGOOGLEGROUPS.COM@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NyyuT-0006mH-KR for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:53:05 -0700 Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5sf6204975vws.16 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:55 -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: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5FXLcH5PopBTs5mc7V62yzEJ3BITcF2+6H7VquWUeS0=; b=vgMwbRnWYr3Uctzll/pR5zfGfgB5SCZ+iRR8rqKj/bdyNofgDcHllgpd35sniCtzIa eJ44bVvEZkddmQiyr7P9j4YIGy+rRqkiDQmLQs9R8j3a8Ivb9j/+QpjmfzURmqIHrjmV fn44ydtwn0kRDb4HejWb1rIqZMDlGATllWtIM= 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 :content-transfer-encoding; b=QBK3BqalOdPFmz0ZiuhigjpplT1KRVykA+IXV3vvEVSjSILfT9TdgBciE6whn+ztdS kOlKk9oB4glZdtsyBGh7sX2A3NJOfPcKxqsCdcTPfXDvj5C5C/EadtUvg2prALj7HzLV pgqFtJxZzYAXehK4AzBvWuEwFo4JCbDbrZ4ec= Received: by 10.220.107.198 with SMTP id c6mr464883vcp.27.1270522360904; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.79.3 with SMTP id n3ls1337071vck.3.p; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.114.76 with SMTP id d12mr1605655vcq.20.1270522359987; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.114.76 with SMTP id d12mr1605654vcq.20.1270522359957; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com (mail-gw0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 31si31839988vws.4.2010.04.05.19.52.38; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of suomichris@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.42; Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1so2837647gwb.29 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.5.20 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100405213127.GA20699@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:52:37 -0700 Received: by 10.101.174.5 with SMTP id b5mr15233494anp.27.1270522357057; Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] [lojban-beginners] [lojban-announcements] Essay on the future of Lojban, with a simple poll for the community. From: Christopher Doty To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of suomichris@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 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/c67f210addc06a0c X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/d37409bc9d0d3eab Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I, too, somewhat disagree with the question... If Lojban is indeed intended to be "logical," then I am hard-pressed to understand how, if improvement is apparent, one would disagree with said improvement. =A0It seems a more basic question, one to ask before this one, would be "Do you believe that Lojban could be improved if any number of changes were implemented?" And perhaps, also, "Would the benefits of these improvements outweigh the possible issues (relearning, back-compatibility, etc.)?" Having said that, though, I think that the general sentiment of the essay is sound: Lojban should, absolutely, be controlled by a central authority. =A0Letting the language grow on it's own means that it will, if widely picked up, fracture into a bunch of dialects--consider the issue of naming languages which is currently being discussed on the list. =A0Although it might seem minor to some, it is pretty essential to have clear names for all of the languages from my point of view. =A0If Lojban is ever to be adopted internationally as a means of communication, how exactly would that work if people are making up words on an ad hoc basis, as was suggested earlier? Consider an example: because Lojban provides clear predicate places for gismu, I think it would be great to use in glossing basic terms from a bunch of languages for cross-comparison and, by extension, as a medium for publishing scholarship about languages--except that, if everyone is making up names of languages as they go along, how the hell am I supposed to find papers on the languages I am interested in? As in currently stands, there are a bunch of languages that have multiple names, usually with some older and some newer, and I can tell you that is is very annoying to have to do multiple searches to find these things. Why are we expecting that people will just pick up certain words? What about anything written before people start to settle on a given term?? I will also say that, as a linguist, I am going to nitpicking about a couple of things since this issue has come up--I think there is various room for linguistic improvement, as it's pretty clear that there wasn't a ton of linguistic involvement in the creation of the language. Although most everything is sound, there are a couple things that just don't/won't work, and I think it is worth considering them. Gismu with more than four places is the example that jumps immediately to mind, but there are other minor things that will, linguistically, interfere with Lojban being adopted internationally....... On Monday, April 5, 2010, Oren wrote: > "I disagree with the survey statement. > > I agree with your essay in its entirety. Thank you so much for it. > > -Eppcott" > > .i mi cu tugni la'oi Eppcott .i ni'o co'o mi'e korbi > > -- > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. > > --=20 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.