From lojban+bncCK30vq5WENTS_t0EGgR-7cQ2@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 09 15:25:50 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f139.google.com ([209.85.222.139]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Me1-0000Zv-8T for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:50 -0700 Received: by pzk3 with SMTP id 3sf163242pzk.28 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:39 -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:date:from:to :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :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-disposition; bh=Ug624oOpzCcLy3vsgqIWi8oslLIHm/rIP0cPZDU9tnI=; b=p+iF7wf0/2qx4qYbjSVRHqwPBiYSpexySOOMYkrgBLr2apNiH1d/t5wyP6nO4C+x4s f3XbSRd2plBp5dPXS0ICvk4RBkzAdLy6BTOXmilLpaJ6UR+F2EOP0FSZX0g6I0+9FDKH n03RVZdxlza77Jsr9n5A04WiDK5xC3fQeXFrY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent :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-disposition; b=3sKZNwfwZD0WNOnXN6lISx5ax7HXjKAvYrzaNplQnpI678l9D1FWUc1hKdGj2PHb47 Gg8hrYpRkM+dHj0xixxcUqdQjE/eJ6WqgdtYtnVnUsqIF9fIdH8ARdw/kEVcfkJPel4o DPfJA4L8M197+c9xVdqS87PSVq5l1YkkQOLSo= Received: by 10.115.100.14 with SMTP id c14mr73186wam.9.1270851924219; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.115.38.17 with SMTP id q17ls379128waj.0.p; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.50.1 with SMTP id c1mr126839wak.0.1270851921743; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.50.1 with SMTP id c1mr126838wak.0.1270851921690; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.6]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si344580pzk.10.2010.04.09.15.25.21; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.17.117.6 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org) client-ip=69.17.117.6; Received: (qmail 22490 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2010 22:25:21 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 9 Apr 2010 22:25:21 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Mda-0000Z3-FX for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:25:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:25:18 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" Message-ID: <20100409222518.GN11541@digitalkingdom.org> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <20100409014708.GB11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BBF197D.6080601@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4BBF197D.6080601@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 69.17.117.6 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.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/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/9252d34990a8631f Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:11:41AM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:55:23PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > > >>I call upon everyone involved in this discussion to reread the > >>policy http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Official+Baseline+Statement > > > >I think the success of that policy speaks for itself. > > I think it has been quite successful in achieving a stable language. > > Obviously not in getting the baseline done. Pretty sure it's called "the baseline statement", so I call that a total fail. > >I also don't think that describing the lanugage is what we should > >be doing. We should be *declaring* the language. > > At this point, I agree with you. The long term is where we still > are apart. But we don't need to solve the long term yet. > > With regard to the stuff that is presently covered by the baseline > documents, I can live with your position, which is easier to sell > to computer people and harder to sell to linguists. I am also > sure that if it gets to be a problem, you are a reasonable person > and would reconsider. What I want is to understand what you want, right now, to fix the deadlock. It looks like it might be sufficient if you just expand on the last two paragraphs: where do you think we agree? what does "declaring the language" look like to you? What does "I can live with your position" mean, *exactly*? I'm glad you think I'm reasonable; I'm not *feeling* reasonable right now. :) > The point is that defining the current state *should* be > relatively easy to get agreement on, ideally a 100% consensus. Certainly, but who is going to do the work? *No-one* wants to do what you're describing. > The language is what it is, warts and all. Can we agree on what > the warts are? We can always agree on what the warts are; what we can't always see is what the face underneath looks like. If the CLL directly contradicts itself, what are we to say the current state is? There's another big issue here: I do not recall ever understanding that what you wanted was to define cmavo *solely* based on the cmavo list and the CLL, without any reference to anything else. That's really quite a surprise to me. I don't know that it makes a difference to me, but a surprise none the less. And another issue: none of this is relevant to the matter at hand, in my mind. The matter at hand is that, for better or worse, the BPFK was trying to do description-of-current-state and changes at the same time; perhaps that was a mistake, but it's besides the point. At some point, there will be change proposals. The matter at hand is: what happens to those proposals? We have been deadlocked for *five years* because one camp believed that the silent majority wanted the language to be as stable as possible, and the other simply wanted the language to be awesome. I wanted to find out which was actually true, and head in that direction. So. The BPFK has been doing things in not the order you intended. I had forgotten that, but it's not interesting or relevant to me. What is important to me is that in the fullness of time, there will be change proposals, and if they're going to be deadlocked, I don't want any part of the BPFK. That expresses, I think, the heart of what I want: a way to resolve deadlocks in the PBFK when change proposals *do* occur. It seemed to me that changing the current ordering of the stuff in task #4, and making it more explicitely ordered, would do the trick nicely, so I went to the community to find out what was actually wanted. In direct contradiction to what I said mere minutes ago, I'm willing to push the BPFK to start by describing the current state of the CLL and cmavo, even though that seems like mindless grunt work and I'm going to hate every minute of it (I expect to be the only one doing it, and if it works out this way *I expect a fucking *medal* for it*), but if it'll make things smoother, I'll do it. What I am *not* willing to do: 1. Publish *anything* before a dictionary. 2. Publish a dictionary before all non-trivial outstanding change proposals are completed. 3. Continue working on the BPFK for even one more *second* under the prior conditions, which were that Broca and you and Nora would block any change short of a direct internal contradiction *just because it was a change*. That behaviour is what task #4's list calls for, and it's not working. I want the BPFK aligned behind a set of goals *for the language*, and committed to acheiving them, before I will do *any* further work on it. This obviates much of what you said, so, trimming. I think we can turn that into a middle-ground proposal. Your turn. > If task 1 had been done relatively quickly, I *really* didn't understand task 1, it seems. > >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. > > > >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. > > Can you get people include what is necessary for part 1 as part of > their writing the change proposal? For the record: it has *always* been the case that BPFK proposals have included detailed reference to the various parts of the current state(s). > If so, then my position becomes no more than having byfy vote that > the part 1's accurately reflect the status quo before trying to > finalize agreement on the solutions. Ideally, we'd have a > complete set of task 1 description before we start formally trying > to approve the changes, but I can bend there. I'm not at all sure I get why that (re-writing the CLL in the form of cmavo definitions before anything else) is *so* important to you, but if that's really all you want in the short term, that's quite reasonable. > >>I envisioned, in effect, that byfy would be supplanted or > >>supplemented by the entire Lojban-using community. Whether some > >>sort of official body like byfy would make a formal decision is > >>something the community can decide then. We don't need to decide > >>this now, do we? > > > >We need to do *SOMETHING* now. > > Agreed. If only because you, as byfy jatna, want something done now. No. We need to do something now because the BPFK has been stuck for five years, and I'm not sure I can count on the fingers of only one hand the major, active Lojbanists that are ready to walk out. > Give me a baseline first, and I might be willing to grant a blank > check for whatever some sufficient number of people are able to > debate and document solely in Lojban. And I see no problem with > byfy as answerer of questions and documenter thereof. (But the > documentation should be in Lojban, shouldn't it? What level of > documentation of what kind would be necessary for the answer to be > sufficiently authoritative? I don't know the answer, and I am not > prepared to think about it). The problem with documentation in Lojban is that it's totally useless for someone learning the language; changes need to make their way back into the CLL and L4B and the dictionary and such. However, as long as someone's willing to step up and turn our in-Lojban discussion into changes to those documents, I *love* the idea of the BPFK being a Lojban-only forum. It'll be all me-and-xorxes, all the time. :D > Minimizing relearning is certainly an argument that can be made > against a major change, but nothing in the section 4 points actually > requires that as a factor - it was more or less assumed that the > need to achieve consensus would ensure that the sorts of things > covered by your goals are considered to a degree people find > appropriate. Yeah, it's the need to acheive consensus, in absence of clear goals, that's killing us. > >>>We're basically demanding that every newbie have a gigantic > >>>level of dedication just to use the language effectively. We > >>>might as well put up a sign that says "Warning: hard work > >>>within". > >> > >>which seems to argue for a minimal specification > > > >Absolutely the opposite; it argues for a complete as possible > >specification, so newbies do not have to work to understand how > >to use the language. > > They have to understand the specification to use the language > competently. Only parts of it; that's why you have tiered learning materials. > (And this ignores the problem that the specification is written in > English, and the larger it is, the less likely it will ever be > translated into Lojban, which I think people agree is how it > should be). Only the most formal part (i.e. the CLL). There needs to be a hierarchy of learning materials, and the lowest level needs to be in something other than Lojban, obviously. I still would *love* to do an autodidakte (a book that teaches Lojban starting only with pictures, and never using any other language). > >I expect there to be varying levels of documentation; a > >beginner's book, the CLL, the online super-spec, that sort of > >thing. How much people choose to learn is up to them; you can > >speak perfectly good Lojban without ever opening the CLL, even > >now. But when people *do* have a question, there should be an > >answer, somewhere. > > I'd like to accept all this. But to say that "you can speak > perfectly good Lojban without ever opening the CLL, even now" > implies that someone who doesn't ever open CLL and is still > speaking perfect Lojban even if he violates CLL. > > If you can beat someone about the head and shoulders and say "you > are doing it wrong" if they don't follow some part of the > prescription, then they have to know that part. If all you do is [optional UI] [sumti] [selbri] [optional sumti], you will never be wrong, and you will never need to open the CLL. You'll also be limited in what you can express, but add NU to that, and not *very* limited at all. It should be possible for people to speak the language correctly after reading L4B or similar, without ever opening the CLL. Sometimes they'll do something wrong, and people will point them at why, in the CLL, and maybe they'll read the surrounding section, or maybe not. Sometimes they'll want to say something they don't know how to say yet, and people will point them at why, in the CLL, and maybe they'll read the surrounding section, or maybe not. Even internally within the CLL, the chapters should start with "here's a seblri" and end with "so if you have se te xe nu ke klama bangu ke'e du'u zarci, it means [this]", so that the deeper you go in a chapter, the less relevant to normal speech it becomes. I'd expect a lot of *really* finicky stuff to never be put into a book. My expectation is that beyond a certain point, the "ever expanding specification" will be dealing with really, *really* finicky edge-cases that almost never come up. What happens if you have a termset on each side of a ga...gi..., and the moon is in the seventh house that day? That sort of thing. Stuff that really, actually doesn't matter the vast majority of the time. I've read the whole CLL, and I've forgotten more than half, and I routinely converse in Lojban. Hierarchy of learning documents. This is the key. > You seem to be turning this around, suggesting that if there are > no rules people tend to say nothing, but ask for the rule, That's my experience on IRC, yes. > but if there are an infinite number of rules people will be > willing to use the language more because they know there is a > definitive RIGHT WAY (even though they probably don't know it and > would have to look it up in the super-spec to find out). I don't think there ever will be an infinite number of rules, and I'm saying that the vast majority of "how do I say X?" conversations will begin and end with L4B or similar. > >>The baseline policy regarding "let usage decide" agrees entirely > >>with this, with the explicit provision that after the baseline > >>is declared, no such vote will be even proposed for 5 years (and > >>the implicit provision that when such a vote takes place, actual > >>usage will be considered). > > > >That was very much not my understanding; my understanding was > >that after that 5 year period, usage *always* wins, even if it's > >illogical or stupid. > > After the 5 years period it is up to whatever Lojbanists speaking > the language decide, which could include any amount of formal > change. My vision incorporated a great deal of recognition of > what will really happen when the community has a large skilled > base of users. It never hurts to have my vision for the language > match what will really happen, since it makes me look wise and > prescient %^) I really don't like the idea of the 5 year freeze anymore, but I concede that planning for after it is probably silly at this time. > 2) Regardless of point 1), a gap when there is no formal change > means that there will be a significant period of time for the > numbers and level of fluency to grow, That's where we disagree: I don't think that the gap will make any difference, at all, to the growth of the language, and the level of activity in #lojban on IRC bears me out quite well on this point. We've been getting *way* more new users since the xorlo weirdness then we were before it. I think people who find the language and are interested won't even notice whether we're in the freeze or not. > As long as it is common for people to announce or propose changes > in English, we lose credibility as an effective language, the > sorts of changes being considered will tend to have a strong > English bias (either to be very much like English or very much > unlike English), and not necessarily well informed in the dynamics > of Lojban communication. I can certainly agree with that. I think that rather than having a fixed time for freezing, we should simply say: "the language is currently good enough; future discussion of changes in Lojban only". I think that would slow down the rate of change *quite* enough for your purposes. > The 5-year period is somewhat arbitrary, but more or less reflects > how long I think it would take for the Lojban speaking community > to be large enough and skilled enough (and for the lexicon to be > well-enough developed) to discuss change without recourse to > English (and maybe to enable CLL and the baselined word lists to > be translated into Lojban) Again, I don't think a freeze will make any difference to popularity, because nothing about a freeze will advertise the language to people who wouldn't otherwise find it. It *may* make a difference to fluency, but I'm not even sure about that. > >Task 4, and its ordering of requirements, was what caused the > >deadlock. > > Can you produce a rewording of task 4 (or a statement of byfy > policy/procedures that would override the text) that eliminates > this apparent ordering of requirements that I don't think we > intended, and which would end the deadlock? > > If you can do so, will you try it? That's pretty much what my plan was anyways (see mail entitled "That's *not* my formal proposal"). > Since I think byfy has the power to prioritize requirements on its > own, and in any event the Board has the interim power to interpret > the baseline statement and you can easily get a Board majority, > this aspect of your issues might be resolved quickly and without > acrimony. > > Then, if you are correct, no more deadlock? *nod* > >You seem to think that everything is fine with the BPFK's charter as > >is, yet clearly it isn't, because we've been stuck for 5 years on > >{.ai nai} (yes, really, on *just* that issue, for that long). > > Alas, Nora and I don't really even know what the issue is (and > didn't even know that there was an issue till you mentioned it), so > I'll have to get back to you on that. You can be as nasty as you > want about my failure to keep up, but I simply haven't been able to > follow the discussion, or even to distinguish that there WAS a > discussion amidst the overwhelming volume of Lojban List traffic > that I have also been trying and failing to follow. We havn't discussed it in at least 3 years. It's just been a silent deadlock. > For resolving the issue, this seems inherently *much* smaller than > something like xorlo, and I'd likely go along with anything that > was clear and not egregiously weird. I doubt that there is enough > usage of .ainai for a usage or relearning argument to count for > much. I agree, but Broca was blocking it simply because it was a change. This was the core of the issue. > As for byfy being stuck on one issue for a long time, the way it > ideally would have worked would have been to drop it and get all > the noncontroversial stuff out of the way and come back to the > tough issues. That's the problem: this issue isn't tough at all; it was a total 50-50 deadlock (because of the consensus requirement). But i know what you mean. > You had a new person come in today and write a cmavo definition. That's the first time in something like 5 years. > I don't know if it is good enough, but I imagine a couple dozen > people could do something similar for all the remaining cmavo in a > few weeks, even if some of them only do a couple of words. I do to, but I have no idea where to find those people. I'll try again after the mailing list is updated, though. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ -- 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.