From 3ovm9SwgJBqULJY.TWJSLRFNQ.HTRQTOGFSLTTLQJLWTZUX.HTR@groups.bounces.google.com Thu Apr 08 08:43:57 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3ovm9SwgJBqULJY.TWJSLRFNQ.HTRQTOGFSLTTLQJLWTZUX.HTR@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NzttX-0007Em-Do for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:57 -0700 Received: by pwi3 with SMTP id 3sf716686pwi.16 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:45 -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: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cKa/b549gg4IeT06JMRy6XTsBG9f83RAVvDbzTNw9pM=; b=YMhPdggkMMnu2sXV6T5AFaxzXPDkKQqdwbn6tYMV2HA2W2ijdNPVU1G8lH6bwy2FP5 Tq/wfjmjtOKAqbUzEE4YSajsXb10YBf0NVlRMvhHg0lA5y5SojDWOpUUTiHNImkerYxJ cqBk8xryn5hl8nh130WRV2qt4tuopln+yrRJQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version: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:content-transfer-encoding; b=FbjSOyk2zsOebtTAqsmXFAhJSOS0YzKXcdY3xIGV4S3+t0vjL5UDBx4rpItLzvfll4 Xjk/qCDHCg1NXputxxg17sRc3rkvj/nqzTg/JWbBaZpGcf1UT9Yc6SctmWeFdXCCnX6N 5s5n6i2va2Yig7u2okRELOJ1idTnWCNzCWTdM= Received: by 10.142.118.27 with SMTP id q27mr19368wfc.46.1270741410768; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.8.28 with SMTP id 28ls1839242wfh.0.p; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.60.20 with SMTP id i20mr57762wfa.13.1270741408563; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.60.20 with SMTP id i20mr57761wfa.13.1270741408539; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f48.google.com (mail-pw0-f48.google.com [209.85.160.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si32645pzk.6.2010.04.08.08.43.27; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.48; Received: by pwi7 with SMTP id 7so2013244pwi.7 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.109.10 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:43:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Oren Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:43:07 +0800 Received: by 10.143.84.5 with SMTP id m5mr204043wfl.313.1270741407166; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Yet Another Tangent: my first cmavo definition To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=get.oren@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: get.oren@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/db7f825f58124ec4 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/5e40b7153d9b9e20 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable An illustration of my confusion: [from the original baseline statement, ] "The final baseline of the lexicon, and electronic publication of the dictionary is scheduled for 30 June 1997, approximately 6 months from now. Lexical items used in the reference grammar are of course frozen by the current publication and baselining of that document. The major purposes for the 6 month delay are - to provide an opportunity to verify the dictionary text for consistency with the rest of the baseline; - to standardize and clarify incomplete definitions of cmavo and lujvo.=93 No one seems to disagree with the notion that the job needs to get done. In that case, the poll seems to be a false choice: if we accept that there remains 'verifications, standardization and clarification' to be finished, than you can't also support 'absolutely no changes to the language.' I guess the real question is, after 13 years, how do we make this happen. Robin's essay includes some new nomenclature, but no fundamental refutation of the current policy; he and others appear to be saying that by reaffirming the BPFK's authoritative role in proscribing proper lojban, things will fall into place. It was supposed to take six months back when you still introduced the WWW by its full name (read the original announcement). Now we have a wiki and several hundred subscribers to the English mailing list. Let's get the cmavo definitions done. Here, I just tried one, someone check it for me. http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+Attitudinal+Modifiers#Proposed_Def= inition_of_be_u co'o mi'e korbi On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 22:48, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > I have a separate response to Robin's essay in draft form. =A0I think the > following makes sense on its own, so I am posting it first, but it exists > within the context of the other posting that I am not quite ready to post= . > > Matt Arnold wrote: >> >> I have been drifting out of the community for the past couple of years >> through discouragement. I used to have such grand dreams for the >> project, but most of those plans turned out to be dependent on the >> BPFK finishing Lojban. > > I still have those grand dreams. > >> I thought work was proceeding apace, behind the scenes, and that the >> only problem was generating enough work. It now turns out to have been >> actively held back by a dispute between description of usage, and >> prescription through centralized planning. > > And it shouldn't have been, because until the byfy work is done, centrali= zed > planning is required. > >> In a community this size, usage is a statistically insignificant sample. > > On most of the issues remaining undecided, I would probably agree. > >> We have no known means to measure or prove anything about usage. > > I'm not sure about this. =A0Jorge, for example, argued that xorlo is pret= ty > much transparent in terms of actual usage, a claim that could not be made= if > your statement were true. > >> It is also a self-contradicting authority. > > The point is that it isn't an "authority". =A0Most natural languages do q= uite > well without any sort of "authority" deciding correctness. In the one > noteworthy exception, French, the attempts to exercise that authority are > largely ignored by actual speakers of the language. > > "Let usage decide" was a recognition of this inevitability. =A0It was a > desired LONG TERM state. The byfy work of formalizing the baseline was > understood as a PRECONDITION to building the usage base to the level wher= e > it becomes possible for "usage to decide". > > Somehow or another, it got turned around so that people think that byfy > cannot decide anything UNLESS usage exists sufficient to decide. > > That certainly was not *my* intent. =A0I wanted byfy to document the stat= us > quo, whatever it is, with any conflict resolved in favor of what people c= all > the "conservative" prescription, UNLESS there is significant usage (or > unless something was demonstrably "broken", such as the typos in CLL that > are up for correction). > > If there isn't usage enough, and the prescription is vague, then of cours= e > byfy was to be deciding things by fiat, in order to eliminate that vaguen= ess > where possible. > > The bias for conservatism is intended as a bulwark against arbitrary chan= ge, > and especially that based on aesthetics which is both transient and heavi= ly > English-biased, so long as there is more talking *about* Lojban than ther= e > is talking *in* Lojban. > > Of course, for some issues, the best way to demonstrate the need for chan= ge > is through usage. =A0But Cowan and I had for several years demonstrated h= ow > you can have controlled change under the baseline system. =A0For 4 years = or > so, every change to the formal grammar was documented in a change proposa= l > which stated the status quo and the reason for change, and the resulting > formal change to the documentation. > > I had intended that byfy do the same, documenting the status quo, and > accumulating formal proposals to be decided (separately from the > documentation effort). =A0But not one change proposal, even xorlo, has ev= er > stated what would change in CLL or the "cmavo list" as a result of that > proposal, even though those are the only two manifestations of the baseli= ne > that seem relevant. (The byfy product will presumably become a third, but= we > cannot formally change what hasn't yet been written). > >> Usage in the wild has no mechanism with >> >> which to resolve disputes with other usage. > > In real life, it does, obviously, because you and I and others (including > several non-native speakers) are communicating in English and making > ourselves understood, and yet we are not speaking the same way Chaucer or > Shakespeare did. =A0The language has evolved, slowly, because "usage has > decided". > > But I agree that Lojban isn't at that point yet, and cannot reach that po= int > without byfy completing its work. > >>No wonder we were in a permanent bottleneck. > > And we will remain so, unless we can complete the byfy project in some so= rt > of mutually acceptable way, because people demand a prescription as a > starting point. > > (It is NOT clear that people will demand a later re-prescription after us= age > of the baselined language is well-established. =A0I have tried to have us= wait > until then to decide and then have the decision made by the people actual= ly > using the language.) > >> We let talented people go to waste for nearly a decade. This has been >> a disaster. > > I don't think it has been a disaster. =A0The community has continued to g= row, > and maybe now we finally have enough people to get the job done (I hope). > > I do not accept it. > > But you *have* accepted it up until now, and you are wearing one of the k= ey > hats in the organization. =A0I stepped aside several years ago because pe= ople > perceived that I was in the way of getting things done. =A0Robin took ove= r > some of my hats, and has gotten an immense amount done. You've taken over > order fulfillment and turned that around, for which I have much > appreciation. > > But if you don't accept the status quo in the byfy work, and think that > talent is going to waste, what are *you* doing about it? > >> The "let usage decide" policy was put in place to prevent a recurrance >> of the James Cooke Brown failure mode-- > > No. =A0"letting usage decide", had nothing to do with JCB. > > The policy of having a formal baseline, and being resistant to change > imposed from on high was a response to one aspect of JCB's failure - the > inability to get people to stop talking about the language (and endlessly > proposing changes) and start using it. =A0We've largely accomplished that > much. =A0People use the language, and ask "how to say it" questions. > >> a failure mode which is no longer possible in the current environment. > > I wish. > > I can easily imagine a huge number of people deserting the project if, fo= r > example, a sufficiently radical orthography change was proposed by someon= e > and adopted by the byfy. =A0Whether that would kill the project is hard t= o > say, but any mass exodus in response to an official change from 'on high' > would be precisely "the James Cooke Brown failure mode". > >> We need a policy that >> >> mitigates the failure mode we're seeing, not the one that threatened >> us decades ago. Now our failure mode is lack of decisiveness. It is >> the responsibility of centralized authority to break the impasse that >> happens when you let usage *totally* decide, rather than influence. > > .oicai > > Until byfy gets its job done, "let usage decide" is NOT the policy, so yo= u > and others should stop blaming it. =A0byfy HAS the authority to *totally* > decide. > > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement > > is the policy. > > The reference to "let usage decide" incorporated from the 1997 baseline > statement is preceded by these words: >> >> The following material from the 1997 baseline declaration is reiterated = in >> the current statement, with a couple of notes as indicated. These statem= ents >> apply after the language baseline is declared complete and the freeze is >> again imposed. > > Note that second sentence. "Let usage decide" applies ONLY after byfy > finishes. > >> Robin's plan is now well underway and it will succeed. > > Which plan is that? =A0He wrote an essay which is being debated. =A0There= is a > proposal at the end that doesn't in fact deal with the current byfy > paralysis, so far as I can tell, but rather talks about what will happen = =A0at > some future time when byfy has actually gotten its original job done. > > If Robin's essay needs a formal change to the policy, it will be up to th= e > member's meeting to approve it, since they approved the current policy. > >> I have confidence that the tide is overwhelmingly on our side. > > On whose side? =A0What other side is there? > > In consensus politics, there shouldn't be "sides" in the sense you seem t= o > be using the term. =A0The goal is agreement, not winning a battle. > >> That will >> >> prevent me going away. But I will not remain in a project that is >> committed to an indefinite holding pattern. > > Why are we in an indefinite holding pattern? =A0And what specifically do = you > want to *do* to change that pattern? > > Redefining byfy's long-term role in the language community doesn't seem > likely to change anything NOW. =A0It won't get a cmavo dictionary done. I= t > won't get CLL revised to incorporate xorlo and other decisions that have > been made, etc. > > And if we can't get people to do the necessary work, then stagnation will > continue no matter how much the policy is fiddled with. > > 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=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.