From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxC5v_3dBBoE41uDFg@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 09 10:11:47 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Hk6-00014A-WC for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:47 -0700 Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5sf1862312gyd.16 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:36 -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:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QU5GdukKgLXFNJMpLg+X7me8dM1kyc8RXU4hO9TA/BI=; b=u77+58Z0eHifqb1iIgkozTUO+g4HrZ+UeG+c2Sz2Eo4Z7cMDpyrWdU6Tt23am+GOtr jog8GyXCxVanb4w+Z9Wd8jbfzT/38nqHkAujh1Sik1kr5HaEaZ9/KRo7W8NsPt4pZ8w2 Y/yPJE24POJVgCBq+ZrI0aI/JhkcpaiHnQOrk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :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:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZdEGnEhu2DwjU2d8UzEfcAy/4TOUTuk39n+jXGYxY2PUQKWbHssoV2acEbOOWfaEUz Zxu44AG4ohZrBc/FYdg7cYE12DPCXA7AkTbolhXcm+6qCLUuoeqsPUEtG+xPuPZi50aN D1BMJx3iG6gGwtFYRWlRETTF9r0cTLIUfY3lE= Received: by 10.91.133.13 with SMTP id k13mr98679agn.23.1270833081529; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.36.203 with SMTP id u11ls203360fad.2.p; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.47.4 with SMTP id l4mr31327faf.8.1270833079445; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.47.4 with SMTP id l4mr31326faf.8.1270833079387; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com (mail-bw0-f209.google.com [209.85.218.209]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si135417fxm.1.2010.04.09.10.11.18; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.209 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.209; Received: by mail-bw0-f209.google.com with SMTP id 1so2697662bwz.21 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.6.193 with SMTP id a1mr376555bka.104.1270833077999; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a11sm11093654bkc.15.2010.04.09.10.11.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BBF5FB4.5070608@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:11:16 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <20100409014708.GB11541@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20100409014708.GB11541@digitalkingdom.org> X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.209 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@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/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/f3d5bd87d8c86a6d Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob: > And I contend that his second point is the problem. The assignment for > byfy was NEVER "perfection". I thought the assignment was to achieve > "good enough", and that CLL brought us pretty close to "good enough", > but that a couple of areas like the cmavo list needed to be brought up > to a standard comparable to the rest of the language documentation. >=20 > Somehow, things morphed into byfy being required to define the language > so as to answer all the questions that anyone will ever ask. I never > supported that mission, and I'm not entirely sure how it came into being. >=20 > (It seems that Robin WANTS that to be the mission, but I'd like to see=20 > the more limited job done first, before forming an opinion on that.) A language is a system of rules mapping between sounds and meanings. By tha= t sensible definition, Lojban is nowhere near "pretty close to good enough"= . The so-called 'grammar' doesn't deserve to be called a grammar, since all= it does is give meaningless structures to phonological strings. CLL does m= ake a start on the definition of the rules of Lojban, but only a start.=20 Some users of Lojban don't realize how meaningless or semantically indeterm= inate their utterances are. Some, I presume, don't care. Others are frustra= ted. And perhaps in a small Lojban-speaking enclave of Argentina, they've c= reated their own much more complete dialect. I would have felt much more vehemently about all this, had I not become con= vinced that Lojban can never be Logban3, i.e. can never be a usuable logica= l language; and since I care about a usable logical language, the failures = of Lojban pain me less. Robin Lee Powell, On 09/04/2010 02:47: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:55:23PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: >> The policy explicitly says that "let usage decide" is NOT >> applicable until AFTER the byfy completes the 4 tasks assigned >> under "THE LANGUAGE DESIGN COMMISSION" is the policy statement >> (read the second sentence under INCORPORATION OF PRIOR STATEMENT). >=20 > One place where we differ is that I no longer think usage should > decide *ever*. Unless the BPFK becomes totally controlled by a pack > of drooling morons, of course usage will be acknowledged and > respected, and the BPFK may *choose* to promote usage to the status > of officialness, but we should not let the language drift via usage. > It should be well specified. >=20 > I also don't think that describing the lanugage is what we > should be doing. We should be *declaring* the language. Exactly. Declaring the language. What users do should be neither here nor there: the language should be a to= ol, consisting of a set of sound--meaning correspondence rules, available f= or whatever use people wish to make of it. Pierre: > Can we have some Lojbanists accepting some, but not all, of the rulings o= f the BPFK? The usage of Lojbanists would and should be unregulated. The declaration of= Lojban would exist to be used freely however people choose. Robin again: >> As I see it, the problem has been that the procedures as written >> by Nick and maintained by Robin >> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Procedures have largely conflated >> tasks 1 and task 4 of the byfy effort, raising the standard for >> task 1 so high as to make it unachievable, with all aspects of the >> language defined and justified to the utmost, whereas the intent >> is only that change-by-fiat be justified. >=20 > The problem is that: >=20 > 1. defining the cmavo requires making sense of them, which > routinely leads to discovering contradictions and having to make a > decision >=20 > 2. no-one wants to do work that will shortly be made irrelevant; if > we *know* there's a problem, defining the current state and then > discussing the change at some future date feels like a waste of time This is partly why my contributions to BPFK were never more than desultory.= Description of prior usage is dreary and time wasting if the goal is to cr= eate a declaration that satisfies the main design goals. Of course, the ori= ginal BPFK founders did mainly want a body that would primarily describe us= age, but nobody was interested in doing that work. >> task 1 alone would require that byfy sections include >>> Expanded cmavo definitions. This should be considered a top priority in >>> all sections where it is relevant (which is just about all of them), >>> because the current cmavo definitions suck. >> and possibly >>> Examples of usage in every fashion that the items discussed in the >>> proposal could feasibly be used, especially of cmavo. I'm serious about >>> this: lack of examples is one of the major places the current cmavo lis= t >>> falls down. There needn't be an example for every single cmavo, but >>> there certainly should be an example for every class thereof. >> but all of the rest should be dealt with separately as change proposals >> under task 4 and not even considered until after task 1 is done. >=20 > I shouldn't have to say this after 7 years, but: it's not going to > happen. I explicitely refuse to try to document things we are later > going to change without working on the changes as part of the > documentation, and other BPFK members have told me they feel > similarily. >=20 > In other words: I refuse to do part 1 of > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement by itself. > If you can find people who do not so refuse, let me know. If a versioning system exists, it might make sense for the default position= to be that cmavo are abolished unless a good clear case can be made for re= taining them. --And. --=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.