From 3jj68SwYKBtQBE9101BE910D.EH6BE910D6EE6B46HEKFI.2EC@groups.bounces.google.com Wed Apr 07 01:13:26 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3jj68SwYKBtQBE9101BE910D.EH6BE910D6EE6B46HEKFI.2EC@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NzQO2-0003Yk-Sv for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:13:26 -0700 Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5sf784836vws.16 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:13:16 -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:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=hBr0ZXh+c701YnXZBkSBOXEp2MydB86aYkXMer75uqI=; b=yqebxFPAVBHFTHgpCSP9inPL7NsiYkgIEeeAnaAzucJW0ww4P1rc/1RSjma3r3AJoj jfqui0Yr7UijO1Coal+oaDniKVnHYQmmJv29MUE08KJiXBUpHqv+zG62//OpBRk3Z9JE BPsxDWb+mm5U21878FkPHssHbOrtZ5YVN/Vr8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-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=zO1VZ9Tiy4K3Y/P+LLf4Um/51yUS2HTYWVBVY/0pZciQvIv6GbKimsvlQCG/86Tg/9 +x6//EjRD3T+URDyvooEt+XFhkUgNilGgkVp/QgLdz345XBaCM0i2/qW/K6j0WX/c5+T SniOc0ZxaLkUXpvnhaJ3ghNBTRNzFYvAyC7ZI= Received: by 10.220.124.66 with SMTP id t2mr602108vcr.3.1270627982337; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:13:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.47.17 with SMTP id l17ls1643903vcf.5.p; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.81.69 with SMTP id w5mr1973010vck.26.1270627979930; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.6.5 with SMTP id j5mr5079266agi.2.1270627564032; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.6.5 with SMTP id j5mr5079264agi.2.1270627563962; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net (eastrmmtao101.cox.net [68.230.240.7]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si547830yxe.6.2010.04.07.01.06.03; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.7 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.7; Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100407080604.XMGI14747.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 04:06:04 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.225.124]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 2Y621e0052hfrC602Y62oH; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:06:03 -0400 X-VR-Score: -50.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=u9aaE4Pfr0xy9UvPxuh9qFR1i2SV5RyaXjJQawTgqeY= c=1 sm=1 a=ObLqgTxSj2AA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:17 a=FAxVqf75AAAA:8 a=wf--9O0HAAAA:8 a=VeNTjOFysvm_sPOxwUUA:9 a=xqa58YtxxkQ1nuu1mKEA:7 a=tOutY0YLeET8t9MjDZehsuR92NkA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ZzKPnrqML_gA:10 a=aYzBwemZRbMA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4BBC3CE4.6080803@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:05:56 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-announcements] Essay on the future of Lojban, with a simple poll for the community. References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.7 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org 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/ffaecfa39b18a7fb Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > >>FOLLOWUPS TO: The main list. >> >>OK, been promising it for a while; here it is. >> >>http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%3A+You're+Doing+It+Wrong >> >>There are all *sorts* of finicky details we could discuss, but right >>now I and others would very much just like to get a sense of where >>the community stands on these sorts of issues, so, if we could >>*please* keep the discussion for now (1) on the main list and (2) >>agree/disagree answer to the following question, after you've read >>(as much as you wish to) of the essay: >> >> I would like Lojban to remain as close as it possibly can to its >> current state, regardless of whether I or a group of experienced >> Lojbanists see that improvements could be made. >> >>Agree or disagree? Both, depending on timeframe and definitions of terms. Lojban needs to remain stable and resistant to change, especially in the near term. When numbers of Lojbanists and formal documentation are both strong enough, then "improvements" will generally be made by usage, not by fiat, with skilled Lojbanists being the only ones having the capability to demonstrate and explain their variant usages in-language, and other skilled Lojbanists voting-with-their-usage to adopt the variation. That is what the phrase "let usage decide" was supposed to refer to - the asymptotic reduction of change-by-fiat to nil, in favor of natural evolution through usage. Shakespeare introduced considerable new vocabulary and usage to the English language, and needed no byfy to approve his efforts. Thus in the near term, I agree. In the longer term, I disagree, but require that "improvements" are introduced through usage, and explanation in-language when necessary, and not by fiat. Of course, by "current state", I mean the language that the byfy is attempting to document, and not the state of half-documented-ness that persists. lojbab -- 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.