From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDYwr3lBBoEA3qdHA@googlegroups.com Fri Oct 08 11:22:34 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4HaO-0001OM-G9; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:33 -0700 Received: by gya1 with SMTP id 1sf1202392gya.16 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:22 -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:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=RK9h5X/bBW2cUer8gxJLWHxR++lI/mPV/VIPeGqffmk=; b=myt6lSrBM15aYmAac6hy9HvDU7EBmR+76HujhqW3m4LOAQuOHrEj0mrpGayMBtqvmJ hkvaXzaessAUxUg5VZ1xuPEgSmBZ+hC4j+0GzEGw8+RV0ngS0ns4syofnSHmq8r3hUiR N9MtBHBc1ih/xt1tBSpvnbfK8+UArSlFip0tQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=rLkJK8nwBO2D882vgKay+dE5WtlH2BBp2BuCJt3g7rzLYUgIk2ey+vgthxcc+GT1qO ahCBlcr6Lmo0y5wadfN9wO+VVAJQHeEf4WspBzSjRl0NvD6Q4Dzmr5rkWr5OQPV0UvcH PQkKQ79jN9ue9LPvf6J/oKtDVjIBp6s62klLo= Received: by 10.150.72.5 with SMTP id u5mr272629yba.37.1286562136869; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.151.5.19 with SMTP id h19ls56857ybi.1.p; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.108.168 with SMTP id q28mr655536yhg.9.1286562136402; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.108.168 with SMTP id q28mr655534yhg.9.1286562136375; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.119]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id q39si1911864yba.13.2010.10.08.11.22.15; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.119 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.119; Received: (qmail 87368 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Oct 2010 18:22:15 -0000 Message-ID: <927845.87204.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: l9sds7oVM1kILjYcSIu6LqEo.bJXvSAPxDqMgV_0MAXx21v qhBKKTPrlH7bPlPsuRFKYHW2872CtdoXKoZDiqt3UYHhCMVB1MjdegxRUvYy ZzfA.e6t4LbiM9Nqr5p6PxA9U8Da5fCtOIpxepa0m0qvA5dtSElGxTki57Ah VJcgx6aOuqQ9cBsAexAQbrkx2vgehfFh3MGAMJQpVtwtib1yaEhlqyybFJaE jnuvggHQof8iC3VCGuInn6CGJLoYBpRob.gYyAELJzJi.gcL3_sBAkHuEp2c CQHQsH9F_yPq2Hx5NLPddR1Wbbn9ak6Tli.Wgj4lfDh7.iwsk6tqeGDPBZ5A wnSfQ_W2_ZKOQQcRJb08tS7mssWqRJdvm0p_3Gg-- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:22:14 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.106.282862 References: <20101008173130.GA29534@alice.local> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:22:14 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] You're Doing it Wrong To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20101008173130.GA29534@alice.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.119 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Robin's essay misses one important point: if someone says "Let usage decide" he means "Let my usage be decisive." Most of the conflicts (not quite all; some come under problems of logic in one sense or another) arise when two usages conflict (often under the disguise of the "correct" interpretation of some remark in CLL or subsequently). The problem with setting up an authority is then the same as the problem of letting usage decide: how to find the right people to follow. That requires a set of objective guidelines and objective judges to see that they are adhered to and so on. That is, we can still push the starting date back indefinitely trying to do it right. So, someone just needs to do what BPFK was designed to do, write a description of the language in its current state (as he sees it) and then we can haggle. When you look at the problems, they are rarely in the core of the language (the bits that actually come from logic, say) but mainly in the plethora of cmavo, which seem to pop into existence (mainly back in the early 90s, to be sure) like mildew. Happily, like the French shepherd, you can live your whole Lojban life without ever using the Lojban analog of the pluperfect subjunctive. Tell newbies (and oldbies, for that matter) to avoid those spots and, when one comes up, make that a teaching opportunity to expound the particular word/phrase/construction involved, to be referred back to ever after. As for xorlo, it is at least 90% right (the places where problems arise can be numbered in the dozens at most, I think, out of thousands) and, with proper explanation (logic to the rescue again) the remaining cases should give very little trouble at all, once the basic notion (which everybody seems to get with 'le') is under control. ----- Original Message ---- From: .alyn.post. To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 12:31:30 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] You're Doing it Wrong On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:07:09AM -0700, Viral Lamb wrote: > But this isn't the same language I left years ago. I'm personally inspired by Robin's essay as well, and hope to manifest as much of it as I can. The quickest summary I have of the situation is this: a) There are too few fluent speakers of Lojban. b) There are influential people in Lojbanistan that resist change to the status quo. Either actively or simply by non-engagement. c) Some of these people *may* become less resistant to changing the status quo with a greater number of fluent speakers. Most particularly having enough fluent speakers to conduct conversations about changing the baseline in Lojban, rather than discussing it in English. d) Even if that's not true, demographics are on the side of changing the baseline. The timeline is only a matter of our ability to create more fluent speakers. e) The first and best thing you can do for Lojbanistan is to learn Lojban. It would be great if you wanted to clean up and add learning material while you go, but make that secondary to using the language. This community is still bootstrapping itself. We have the most well-specified lanugage ever, and the situation you describe is exactly where we're at. If you want something better than this it frankly doesn't exist today, you have to help make it happen. -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi -- 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. -- 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.