Received: from localhost ([::1]:52226 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDG38-0005aV-Nk; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:23:38 -0800 Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:52904) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YCyPo-0005IO-PV for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:33:57 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l18so6781971wgh.10 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:33:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=BKcIPELvlhpJhux/vSc4c/4PuiWaLUDi1A4mIPcqf/4=; b=PX50iw3iv3rqZak72pqXjv7kwtirFU2z3A9wW4w3xFgTcmA1wc+KfU3Dst7OJf/qjp Xn6vC/gal1ENQQ6PobFKYCZtCCmgbhCGO/jkx9J1b7qt/UQUrziP5wpLex2vf65TZA/a 4DlMXcNgf+Ud989KmHlx1nl6tBCwC74o1B/NAtGDEvlf7E7Yj9lr0Oi78pecj85cOzd8 s5RKIXdHWG9xiBqrxU+M1zPSTqqkXkSANty4ZRfeZjBUVril+hYlsQc3pd7kPSnzFmfW k+YDMEoMx+bjgfioBzEHVblWH+e8k6MRdpaBFB9Sp9qKymx7EZtotDHE/dg30wGppIEo kg3Q== X-Received: by 10.194.108.9 with SMTP id hg9mr52418025wjb.68.1421620425894; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (95-210-212-178.ip.skylogicnet.com. [95.210.212.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ni15sm11927062wic.18.2015.01.18.14.33.40 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:33:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54BC34BE.405@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:33:34 +0100 From: Ilmen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <54B2A1F6.5090105@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060609080506070403010906" X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Spam_score: 3.1 X-Spam_score_int: 31 X-Spam_bar: +++ X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: coi ro do I've joined the logs of today's IRC meeting to this message. mu'o mi'e la .ilmen. [...] Content analysis details: (3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: github.com] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [74.125.82.51 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ilmen.pokebip[at]gmail.com) 2.4 HK_SCAM_S7 BODY: No description available. 0.0 DIET_1 BODY: Lose Weight Spam -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:23:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [Llg-members] January 18 2015 IRC meeting logs X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060609080506070403010906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit coi ro do I've joined the logs of today's IRC meeting to this message. mu'o mi'e la .ilmen. --------------060609080506070403010906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="LLG-Meeting-IRC-2015-01-18.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="LLG-Meeting-IRC-2015-01-18.txt" # Logs of the LLG meeting on IRC (#lojban) on 2015-01-18 # CET time (UTC+1) [17:00:38] banseljaj: how are you today? :) [17:00:40] I'm really enjoying youre presence, mungojelly -- how have you kept up your lojban all this time? [17:00:40] coi lo rodo [17:00:44] I'm goiid. [17:00:47] coi la cilce [17:00:50] good* [17:00:54] How be you? [17:01:03] How be everyone else here? [17:01:16] mukti: you remember my name =) [17:01:23] <@xalbo> mi se xamgu [17:01:30] mukti: uhhhh man geez well. the past decade i went through a thing so terrible i call it "la mabla". mostly i wasn't able to succeed at much of anything for that whole time. [17:01:38] <@xalbo> I good. [17:02:00] fi'i la .guskant. [17:02:13] mungojelly: "la mabla" is evocative enough! [17:02:14] ki'e coi la selpa'i [17:02:18] mukti: now i'm doing various things now that stuff is better, actually getting to a deep fluency in lojban is what i'm working on right now. except not RIGHT this second, when i'm working on my english, sigh. [17:02:22] coi ui la .guskant. [17:02:33] coi la mukti [17:03:03] fi'i .guskant. [17:03:26] ui coi la telselkik [17:03:38] ua fi'i [17:03:39] ui [17:04:59] coi [17:05:07] za'a li pa tcika fo lo ponjo gugde [17:05:21] Has anybody been in touch with lojbab to confirm his presence today? [17:05:36] mukti: I sent an email to llg-members at 3am, does that count [17:06:01] li pa tcika fo lo gento ji'a u' [17:06:01] i learned lojban through a series of periods of intense study, i guess [17:06:02] durka42: I saw that. A good idea to do that ahead of time. [17:06:19] menli: za'a la .guskant. ta'enai sipna vau .u'i [17:06:30] mukti: I just saw. Good work. [17:06:39] ki'e la banseljaj [17:06:40] mi no'e sipna [17:06:59] coi .i .a'e nai pei [17:07:08] one period of course was the "la tcati tcika" period, during that time i was speaking lojban out loud for at least a half hour a day, that's when i first started to have any fluency speaking [17:07:18] mukti: "Membership in LLG or ___ will not be considered a requirement for this position." something missing? [17:07:23] BPFK? [17:07:34] Oops. [17:07:42] ..oi dai [17:07:49] mi zo'u ca'o tcidu [17:07:55] Yes, that was my thinking when I composed that part, but would be open to thoughts. [17:08:10] I like that part [17:08:12] Partly I'm just concerned with the fact that currently "membership" is BPFK is very poorly defined. [17:08:19] when i started trying to record la tcati tcika, hm well it's hard to record a solid half hour of audio on any topic in any language so i was learning both at once, but at first i really couldn't string sentences together, i was so lost [17:08:48] lojbab joined #lojban [17:09:01] loi la lojbab [17:09:06] coi [17:09:07] mukti: so there's a lot in the proposal about selecting a chair. but what about fixing the nebulous membership problem? [17:09:10] mukti: The role of BPFKJ isn't specified, is it? [17:09:10] coi la lojbab [17:09:37] fi'i la .lojbab. [17:10:05] durka42: My thought is that BPFK should be empowered to set such policies. It's my personal hope that a policy like membership would be clear, but I want to avoid the current situation where LLG dictates tons of conditions to BPFK. [17:10:16] gotcha [17:10:26] selpahi: Do you mean in the current policy? [17:10:31] In your proposal [17:10:38] coi la lojbab [17:10:51] coi [17:10:59] coi [17:11:13] coi [17:11:30] .i mi'e la .ilmen. i .ei pei cmene cenba [17:11:51] menli changed their nickname to Ilmen [17:11:57] noras joined #lojban [17:12:06] ue coi la .noras. fi'i sai [17:12:07] selpahi: Yes, that's underspecified. My thinking on that is along the lines of membership -- BPFK could write the detailed policy. The main purpose of the BPFKJ role is to act as the recognized liaison with LLG. [17:12:23] coi la noras [17:12:31] coi la .noras. [17:12:37] I don't see how that differs from the current situation [17:12:38] which is fine [17:12:53] seems to me the main important difference is this proposal gives the BPFK an actual mission to do with dialects [17:12:57] coi fi'i la lojbab [17:13:03] And2 joined #lojban [17:13:16] coi la rosta [17:13:19] coi la and [17:13:25] durka42: The term limit and lack of constraints like consensus minus one, or any of the numerous constraints on the business or order of business are different. [17:13:26] coi la lojbab. .e la noras. [17:13:30] coi la .and. [17:13:42] coi la .and. [17:13:42] je'e [17:13:53] you are obviously more familiar with the current rules than I am [17:14:12] coi la noras coi la.and [17:14:15] Am I in the right place at the right time? [17:14:22] Yes, you are. [17:14:25] You are! [17:14:26] Welcome :) [17:14:52] OK. There seems to be some discussion about mukti's proposal, which was posted to the member's list. Are there any other proposals that are being referred to? [17:15:19] That's the main topic of discussion at the moment. [17:15:21] may be we should somehow discuss the future of CLL? [17:16:00] The future of CLL, The future of the language itself and the mukti proposal [17:16:59] I have in mind several topics, which include the future of byfy and the future of CLL. But I wanted to see what was already being talked about. [17:17:04] gleki: I would also like to discuss CLL, including discussing what connection if any between BPFK and CLL [17:17:17] Someone should moderate. [17:17:29] Should the mediawiki be discussed at all today? [17:17:44] all hail mediawiki [17:17:59] I can add it to a list of topics, but I don't know what it is. [17:18:01] mukti: how to become a member of BPFK acc. to this proposal? [17:18:53] Since robin isnt here how can we discuss mediawiki? We can only vote for/against making it official but since few members are familiar with it may be I first should present its advantages? [17:19:15] gleki: It's my hope that the BPFK would establish clear policies on membership. One of the defects {pe'i} of the current policy is that LLG heavily specifies all BPFK activity, including membership. [17:19:22] Is Robin present? He is of course the one who knows what he is doing right now with CLL and Lightning Source. [17:20:35] mukti: should i drop the proposal regarding mediawiki to the mailing list? does it even matter now? [17:20:36] lojbab: rlpowell has been tagged but I don't see any recent activity from him. He is probably asleep. [17:20:41] I had not yet called the vote on the proposal to fund his efforts, so I want to get any discussion of CLL republication out of the way first, [17:21:20] gleki: I think the proposal matters, since it is good to get the will of the community. [17:21:21] I know none of you can actually be bothered to fully process my opinions about this because they're strange, but I feel I should point out to you again that in deciding membership you are also deciding the entirety of who's subject to your decisions. You can or should only autonomously decide about your own actions. OK well good feel free to ignore that then yay. [17:21:32] I vote to fund robin's efforts. [17:21:54] thanks for your input mungojelly [17:21:58] I vote to fund robin's efforts too. [17:22:10] gleki Although i already voted in the mriste [17:22:11] me too, though I thought we weren't voting today [17:22:25] Can't do voting here since not member-only. Besides, it was already voted and seconded. [17:22:55] If it's not much trouble, we can move to a member-only room. [17:23:23] I prefer open discussions [17:24:11] Btw I offered today's meeting to be logged (even the part not spoken in Lojban) and to be copied to llg-members list. Probably I'll have to delete messages from non-members [17:24:28] seems like a good idea [17:24:30] If I'm not mistaken, this IRC session is intended to reach mutual agreement, not for formally voting :) [17:24:35] Specifically, since Robin says that his republication will likely cost much less than the proposed $2000, do we want to consider any promotion. Also if publication through LS is not an exclusive agreement, do we want to simultaneoisly find Print on Demand publishers in Europe and possibly Oz, which would substantially cheapen the costs to non-US buyers (the current CLL weighs around 2.6 lbs 1.2kg, and the postage costs to Europe are [17:25:04] (cut off after "Europe are") [17:25:17] Oz? does that mean Australia? [17:25:50] There is no voting, in part because even figuring out who is present for quorum is hard. [17:26:01] FWIW, I count 11 members [17:26:17] remainder of my last:: postage costs to Europe are as much as the costs of the book [17:26:26] Oz = australia [17:26:50] Strange. Dont they have printing facilities in other countries? [17:27:02] to be distinguished from az the member' [17:27:11] :) [17:27:29] Perhaps it would be worth considering a subsidy to reduce the price of foreign shipments until overseas printing is established. [17:27:45] Does LS print in US and then expensively ship overseas? [17:27:52] mukti: oh, i missed your message. Okay, dropping the post about mediawiki into the llg-members mailing list now. It'll be rather tech-centric. [17:28:02] I don't know where they have printing. We don't even get info on who is buying the books. [17:28:52] We should probably find another service. [17:28:56] lojbab: I have seen several people who wanted to buy the book [17:29:03] banseljaj: we wont discuss your proposal today? [17:29:12] I don't know enough about how LS works to know if there is a mechanism to subsidize overseas shipping. [17:29:13] lojban: in Japan [17:29:14] banseljaj: the position of project manager [17:29:22] I was wiating for an opportunity to bring it up [17:29:27] as part of the BPFK discussion [17:29:28] :D [17:29:51] the lightning source website mentions "global distribution channels" [17:30:00] I'm not clear on where they ship from [17:30:26] This is how they should work. They should ship from the nearest department where the books are printed [17:30:30] The moon? Someone should go and ask them about it. [17:31:33] Project mamanger proposal is on the list for possible discussion, but is further down, because it is new business, and doesn't get called for consoideration until after the old business which is CLL and byfy. Any future logfests, per Pierre's postings, would also be new business [17:31:35] Btw, another proposal (a rivl to project manager position) is spending money on IT-projects instead. Like glossers (machine translation), writing ditionaries etc. [17:32:11] writing dictionaries isn't IT-related, sorry. [17:33:10] Such a proposal, gleki, would be new business. Dictionaries could be IT-related if we decided to make dictionary production an automated thing. [17:34:53] For consideration of all finance questions, bear in mind that mukti just reported that we have around $16K US. We normally get less than $2K a year income, I think (mukti may be able to verify) and this may decrease wioth the book coming out via LS. [17:34:54] bilingual periodical is also a kind of new business proposal [17:35:10] New business can't be considered before old business, nothing can be voted on even though everyone's present, this is obviously obstructionist!? What *is* the agenda. [17:35:46] mungojelly: it was my understanding that we are here so we can have a faster paced discussion and then vote and stuff in the mriste [17:36:04] Sure, I was trying to recall everything that could be discussed. [17:36:25] *I was just trying [17:36:32] mungojelly: the order of business was advertised at the beginning of the meeting, and is consistent with how meetings have been run in the past [17:36:38] I am not trying to be obstructionist, but nothing gets voted on in these sessions. Just real-time discussion. We don't have to exclude new business, but it sounds like there are many topics, so I suggest we tryy old business only at first. [17:36:54] We likely will need another session, if this one goes well. [17:38:05] to coverall of the topics that have been raised. I think I said that I want to limit things to 2 hours, possibly extending to 3 hours. [17:39:31] Net income for last three years: $783.70 (2012), $895.94 (2013), $1919.72 (2014) [17:39:41] coi la lojbab [17:39:57] So first of all, without Robin here, I would likemembers, presumably in Europe (and possibkly az in oz and guskant in Japan) to see if there are any publish-on-demand publishers that could do a CLL publication. [17:40:22] Is .az. in Oz? [17:40:36] I think so, [17:41:36] ue how did you get mungojelly back? he said he left because he wants only lojbau conversation [17:42:06] mukti: Robin said that selling the CLL through LS will net significantly lower profits, so presumably that income will go down once Amazon runs out of CLLs? [17:42:12] Nick Nicholas/Robin Turner's textbook is "Lojban for Beginners", is that correct? [17:42:21] Yes [17:42:21] Seems so [17:43:06] I mean left for #jbosnu [17:43:43] Ilmen: yes. We can discuss publishing that as new business, but it probably needs at least a little revision. [17:44:02] it needs xorlo revision, at least [17:44:15] durka42: If Robin says it is less profitable, it must be so. I'm of the opinion that at the present, profitability is less of a concern than keeping the book in print, so I would favor taking whatever path keeps us in print in the short term, and optimizing profitability later. [17:44:28] b_jonas: i felt like it'd be snubbing this meeting to have this be the one day in a long time i hadn't been here. :D but it's true, i'll be found more in #jbosnu from now on. i need exposure to lojban mostly to improve my fluency, i'm practicing thinking in lojban. [17:44:38] mukti: yeah that makes sense [17:45:30] The question of profitbility is not necessarily important, but we have to think about our total dollars to spend on all projects, bearing in mind that income is very small. [17:46:17] What did Robin suggest as an alternative? Amazon's CreateSpace? [17:46:36] I don't know that any alternatives were suggested, [17:46:54] lojbab: Agreed. It's important not to assume the current surplus as an ongoing constant. [17:47:51] ti'e CreateSpace can be shipped from Europe. [17:47:53] We have a current arrangement with LS, and thus Robin knows how to publish through them, in hardcover (since people want CLL to be hardcover). Back when we first looked at LS,maybe a dozen years ago, some others were considered. [17:48:14] But I doubt if whatever was found out would be all that relevant. [17:50:20] lojbab: We have to consider the ebook publication as well. Since we might have that as a revenue stream [17:51:28] Which ebook is that? Or are you saying that CLL shoould be published as an ebook as well (maybe Robin is already planning this, but I have seen no mention thereof) [17:52:44] I'd very much like to see CLL available as an ebook, and I think that will improve sails. [17:52:50] s/sails/sales/ [17:53:06] lojbab: rlpowell s planning CLL as an ebook as well. [17:53:16] I agree to the idea of ebook. [17:53:17] That said, I see that as an enhancement, and maintain that the most important thing to do right now is to ensure that it stays in print. [17:53:39] I have already published a book in lojban on Google Play. [17:53:43] If you're discussing not having a free copy online then I'd have to stop referring people to that as a text they should read? I'm not going to tell people they have to buy something? Just saying.. [17:53:46] OK. Is that done through Lightning Source, or via the Lojban web page. [17:53:47] https://play.google.com/store/books/details/akutagaun_riunosuk_guskant_lo_nenri_be_lo_spati_de?id=hDZ8nls0TNQC [17:53:48] guskant: ue [17:54:04] It cost zero. [17:54:32] mukti: guskant's version of "lo nenri be lo spati denmi" is really gorgeous. beautiful cover photo and everything. i'd like a printed copy of that, guskant! [17:54:40] my last was directed at mukti [17:54:55] we are going to have a PDF to send to lightning source [17:54:59] I had assumed that would be available online [17:55:03] just like the current CLL is available online [17:55:04] I also would like an on-line copy available [17:55:08] (free of charge, I mean) [17:55:10] ua jbobau mutcku [17:55:14] mungojelly: I don't think we'll be taking the online version down [17:55:47] lojbab: Do you mean is the ebook to be done through Lightning Source? I'm not familiar with the details of Robin's plans. For my part, I hope that some day CLL is available through the Amazon Kindle. [17:55:52] But ebooks, hardbacks and an online (free) reference, all should be available [17:56:06] oh sorry, that was banseljaj who said that Robin was planning an ebook. [17:56:23] I believe, though, that the online version has to be considered because it would need to be updated [17:56:39] The question then becomes: is this ebook something apart from the current online version. [17:56:47] lojbab: I do not know where we'll be sending the webook. I assume Google Play books and amazon kindle [17:56:48] I also think there's no reason that it can't be available in some form free through the web site. There are plenty of examples of technical books that are available both as open source content and as paid downloads. People will pay both for the convenience and in order to support the organization. [17:59:18] I agree with you, mukti. I don't think the availability of the online CLL has seriously affected sales of the hardcover, which of course has only been a thousand copies over some 18 years. [17:59:25] Yeah. I think mukti has got it. Like Learn You A Haskell [17:59:27] banseljaj: Amazon kindle publishing did not accept a book _in_ Lojban but they should accept a book _in_ English about Lojban. [17:59:48] <@xalbo> I can easily see both being available, too. A web version freely accessible, an epub/kindle/whatever "ebook" version available for offline reading for a nominal fee. [18:00:03] guskant: I've seen plenty of absolutely crap books on amazon kindle. CLL would be a breeze. [18:00:22] pe'i: Yes - hardback (it's beautiful), Yes - online (it's handy when on Web stuff), Yes - ebook (for on the train). It's just how much can we afford to do the publishing. [18:00:52] guskant: I have submitted a complaint to Amazon about the limits of the language codes. If we could properly mark lojbanic texts as JBO, then it would be possible for people to also download a lojban dictionary marked JBO and to look up words as they read. [18:01:01] banseljaj: sure. [18:01:39] mukti: .ue ki'esai [18:01:55] I was wondering why it was marked Italian [18:01:58] (It's possible to make it work now by abusing other codes -- there are a number of esperanto books that do this.) [18:03:29] I just downloaded {lo nenri be lo spati denmi}. I look forward to reading it! [18:03:48] mukti: .ui ki'e [18:05:31] .oi have we run out of Ands? [18:05:42] <@xalbo> I have mixed feelings about selling CLL1.1. I'd like someone to assuage me. I feel like, to those who aren't intimately connected with the progress of the language, there might be those who feel like they're supposed to buy CLL1.0, then CLL1.1, then CLL2.0 when it comes out, and they see us as money grubbing or something. [18:06:19] <@xalbo> "Why'd you sell me this, when you knew it was going to be obsolete so soon?" [18:06:20] mukti: we have reached Peak And [18:06:58] doi xalbo: Just be sure they know where the free ones are and that the changes are not that global. Maybe a site describing the changes? [18:07:10] this "so soon" might take years. [18:07:14] I, too, think it's weird to make CLL1.1 a big production when CLL2.0 is on the way, but we don't know how long it's going to be until CLL2.0 [18:07:27] people still want copies of the CLL, and soon the stocks of CLL1.0 will run out [18:07:27] xalbo: I think if we explicitly offer a free version, that would help. lojbab pointed out that it doesn't seem to harm sales. Also, for those who have purchased e-versions, it's possible to offer free "upgrades". I have received such upgrades for kindle books. [18:07:32] so that's why we have to print CLL1.1, as I understand it [18:07:38] So can we get some people to commit to researching and reporting to the (formal) meeting. Perhaps mukti on amazon, guskant on Google Play, and gleki on European possibilities. Get several proposals and then discuss picking in the formal meeting. [18:07:39] Anyway indeed I propose remove doubtful parts of CLL like lerfu shift cmavo and YACC and publish them later in the second volume. [18:08:24] um - I USE lerfu chift cmavo and YACC! [18:08:25] I would be happy to research Amazon, but in doing so, want to make sure I'm not adding to the obstacles to keep CLL currently in print. [18:08:33] the same for the dictionary. It can be published as one of the volumes of CLL. [18:09:01] noras: I'm not saying they arent necessary. They arent fully specified. We need to describe them better and then publish. [18:09:03] do'oi mungojelly My idea is essentially to write a set of rules definine what morphology rafsi are allowed to have, as a function of what sounds are in it's selrafsi [18:09:42] Let's just get CLL 1.1 out for now, presumably using Robin's proof that he is producing for LS. I think that is the one on github. [18:09:55] ie [18:10:40] http://vrici.lojban.org/~rlpowell/media/public/cll_prince_for_lsi.pdf [18:10:59] Now there are many more formatting issues there. It's a long way until we can come to discussing xorlo and other things. [18:11:05] (I think that's the most recent build -- per Robin's January 5 post to mriste) [18:11:18] Once we know how hard it is to get all three - hardcopy, ebook and webbook, we can know what to do for other books. [18:11:40] gleki: YACC is not fully specified? [18:12:17] noras: no, I mean lerfu shift cmavo. [18:13:40] noras: lojbab: pardon me for asking, but how much lojban do you speak? mi mutce lo ka kucli lo ni do jbocre va'i [18:13:59] I think the question about YACC is not about its specification, but whether it should be included in the next print edition, per Robin's email to the mriste in October. [18:14:03] pu jbocre .i ku'i ca ku na'e certu [18:14:46] za'a ca'o certu banzu :) [18:14:53] ie [18:14:58] YACC requires a pre-parser for the morphology and even part of the syntax [18:15:13] mukti: I was talking about specification of YACC. Earlier it was proposed in the main lojban mriste that YACC could be published as a separate volume. Now I'm proposing to cinlude less specified parts of CLL into later volumes so that we have time to update them adding new examples. [18:15:25] darn, sorry. [18:15:28] yacc: za'a ca'o certu banzu [18:15:29] (za'a { VAU}) [18:15:31] mukti: I was NOT talking about specification of YACC. Earlier it was proposed in the main lojban mriste that YACC could be published as a separate volume. Now I'm proposing to cinlude less specified parts of CLL into later volumes so that we have time to update them adding new examples. [18:15:37] Wow, Robin's CLL is 704 pages long [18:15:37] <@xalbo> xorxes: Doesn't even PEG require a pre-parser for ZOI handling? [18:15:52] noras: .i .au fonxa mu'a jikca do'o (I'd like to talk to y'all on the phone for instance.) .i mi certu binxo sidju .ai sai (I'd very much like to help you become fluent.) [18:16:19] is that longer than the printed edition? [18:16:25] xalbo: pei it's not a preparser, but the zoi-handling is an extension to PEG [18:16:32] <@xalbo> je'e [18:16:39] that's 100 pages longer than the print edition on my desk [18:16:57] <@xalbo> How much of that is the formal grammars? [18:16:59] noras: ZOI is not handled by PEG, that's correct [18:17:20] xalbo said that [18:17:32] xalbo: how much of the current CLL, you mean? [18:17:45] In Camxes-js (the javascript implementation of the PEG grammar), ZOI is handled with injected Javascript code. [18:17:45] 574 pages. After that formal grammars start. [18:17:46] <@xalbo> I'd support excluding them (or making them into a separate volume.) It seems like that's not the sort of thing that references well from paper. [18:17:48] @ xorxes [18:18:03] <@xalbo> durka42: Yes, that's what I meant. [18:18:19] <@xalbo> Or rather, how many of the 704 pages of Robin's pdf. [18:18:23] yeah, in print the grammar are page 511-563 [18:18:24] Excluding the formal grammar may also reduce barriers to getting back in print, since that section will require special formatting work and make the book more expensive. [18:18:27] after that index [18:18:30] The YACC grammar including the complete index, is around 40 pages [18:18:38] Robin earlier asked whether he could exclude formal grammars. Given that they might require additional manual work in formatting them I suggest that they are printed later. [18:18:50] (what gleki said) [18:19:02] The EBNf is another 10 pages with index [18:19:44] Also the current snapshot of CLL has examples not well formatted. May be after he fixes them the resulting size shrinks may be even by 100 pages. [18:19:54] I'd favor including EBNF but not YACC. [18:20:04] <@xalbo> Someone remind me why we have both the YACC and the EBNF? [18:20:50] gleki: ie, it's just a proof currently, though I highly doubt the length will change by 100 pages [18:20:56] I think YACC is the official, but EBNF was more familiar to many and easier to understand recursion. [18:21:35] Wheras the YACC remains the official form while the EBNF is secondary. I personally only use the YACC version, since the EBNF is too dense for me. I really do think one YACC construct at a time. [18:21:58] I also find EBNF more readable in the print format. YACC, to me, is code -- something I am very used to reading, but *not* in print. [18:22:19] YACC is official because the grammar was verfied using actual YACC [18:23:01] <@xalbo> je'e [18:23:42] I appreciate that since YACC is executable, it provides a value that EBNF does not. I just don't think print is a good medium to deliver that value, since print is not executable. [18:24:28] mukti: iesai [18:25:05] <@xalbo> .ie [18:25:12] ie [18:25:14] But since we are talking about ebooks and web paes as well, we aren'treally specifying print only [18:25:15] YACC could effectively be a DLC of sorts. [18:25:22] heh [18:25:29] DLC ki'a [18:25:42] Ebooks are not different from paperbooks in reading the code. You still can't execute it. [18:25:55] noras: "downloadable content" that doesn't come with the initial purchase; video-game term [18:26:09] <@xalbo> Downloadable content (often for an extra fee, but sometimes free, content that can be added to a video game after purchase) [18:26:33] does it even matter? are the grammars in Robin's proof? if they are, then do we need to discuss it [18:26:56] lojbab: I have fewer objections to including YACC in an electronic edition, since it would not then incur the additional weight and cost. [18:27:12] <@xalbo> ie [18:27:14] durka: true [18:27:41] <@xalbo> I'm fine with throwing in hte kitchen sink in any electronic form. But for printed matter, extra pages are extra cost. [18:27:43] I don't feel all that strongly myself. Whatever Robin produces will be CLL 1.1 [18:27:56] and trees [18:28:04] won't someone think of the trees [18:28:09] My primary concern is to knock down the obstacles to getting back into print. To my sensibility, if dropping YACC from the print edition helps us to get their, it's a nearly painless concession. [18:28:22] s/their/there/ [18:28:25] I dont see any problems. Then later we can publish all parts of CLL in one volume including the dictionary. But since currently we can't do that we should publish only the most essential part needed for everyone. Customers will be able to choose in future what to buy: the complete set or individual volumes. [18:28:33] I just consider it a "selling point" for lojban to visibly show that it is grammatically unambiguous. Maybe the page count is too much, but it would at least be useful to mention *in the book* that the YACC/EBNF is available [18:28:39] I see the the proof contains the EBNF but not the YACC grammar [18:28:40] by the way [18:29:01] noras: I agree that it's essential to emphasize that the grammars are available. [18:30:03] lojban's parseability is an important feature that deserves continued exposition [18:30:03] which makes it weirder that the proof is 100 pages longer. I guess it's just page size/margins/etc [18:30:12] we can even mention that there is a PEG! [18:31:05] That's worth discussing too when we move on to BPFK / Baseline issues. The status of the PEG is not clear. [18:31:11] some improvements the typesetting in the appendices in Robin's version would reduce the page count significantly. he is using a ton of whitespace in places [18:31:54] maik_: I get the impression that Robin would be over the moon if people sent him some pull requests to improve formatting. [18:31:56] Some have wanted to replace the YACC grammar with the PEG grammar as being the standard. But Nora and I have had problems understanding the PEG, whjereas we can buildiung Lojban constructs using ythe YACC grammmar (i.e. the random sentence generator) [18:31:58] i am willing to try to help on this [18:32:31] je'e la'o da mungojelly da [18:32:38] I think speech is more important than a random sentence generator, but I take your point about familiarity [18:32:46] I dont understand YACC. I'm familiar only with PEG. [18:32:54] mi'u [18:32:54] yeah, it's more about what one was "raised on" [18:33:11] This is something of a theme for me, but I don't see why we need to see the PEG as a "replacement" for YACC. It is, however, the formal grammar that seems to receive the most active attention these days. [18:33:33] And by "these days" I mean for the last decade. [18:33:47] right [18:33:56] Does CLL's YACC manage morphology? [18:34:12] But if they disagree, which is deemed correct? [18:34:12] no [18:34:14] Definitely people getting to work on improving the proof is a good thing, I think we are losing Robin because too few have stepped uyp to help out on a continuing basis. [18:34:14] yacc: brydy [18:34:15] (brydy VAU) [18:34:36] camxes: brydy [18:34:37] SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "b" found. [18:35:10] noras: I think that question goes to the heart of things. Is it necessary for there to be a single definition of correctness? [18:36:24] Isn't correctness the heart of BYFY? [18:36:26] <@Broca> ue la lojbab ba'e e la noras [18:36:31] the byfy uses camxes [18:36:34] In practical terms, it seems to me that people have been long accustomed to navigating disparate standards -- not only when it comes to the parsers, but they are an especially clear case. [18:36:39] coi la'oi Broca [18:36:47] coi la Broca [18:36:47] coi .arnt. [18:37:50] In practice the grammar does change regularly. Just throwing a little random tidbit from the living language Lojban into the discussion, if that's relevant at all. :/ [18:37:54] broca: for a meeting, I am reasonably sure that someone will be here %^) [18:38:03] In the case where a discrepancy between the parsers' output is found, that's the job of BPFK to tell which parse is correct, if any :) [18:38:33] or to argue about it, anyway %^) [18:39:16] Then, the incorrect grammar will have to be adjusted accordingly [18:39:22] Probably, as the BPFK evolves from prescriber to describer, the difference between parsers will be less important Right now, the mode is prescriptive. [18:39:51] sounds like a good segue to talk about the future of byfy [18:40:02] And any tidbits per mungojelly are not (yet) part of the prescription. [18:40:29] lojbab: OK that's fine, I'm just pointing out, in case it's relevant to your conversation, that the actual grammar of the spoken language has changed and will continue to. [18:40:39] durka42: ie [18:41:18] durka: I agree. But I really would have liked some explicit commitments before we drop the CLL discussion, if anyone is willing to make such. [18:41:43] okay, I don't mean to prematurely change the subject [18:41:58] A common topic of conversation among people who actually speak Lojban regularly is "ugh, but your suggestion would need a new selma'o." The suggestion is not "which would require asking the BPFK to formally change the grammar." We informally change the grammar, constantly, without permission. Make of that what you wish. [18:42:02] you asked for people to commit to researching publication options [18:42:04] did we get that? [18:42:35] ta'a rodo mide'ajundi ice'obazisipna co'o (to tcika fa li 2:42 .a'enaitoi) [18:42:43] co'o [18:42:45] co'o di'ai la ;guskant. [18:42:51] co'o gy [18:42:54] おやすみなさい [18:42:56] durka: yes. I want something from this discussion to make it back to the formal meeting as well, as motions, etc. But that doesn't have to be formal commitment. [18:43:06] guskant: ko jbosne doi se sinma [18:43:16] lojbab: I am willing to commit to catching up with Robin on his research about publication options at Amazon, to supplement that research as needed, and to report back to the membership. [18:44:13] mukti: sounds good, and anyone else can supplement with other possibilities as needed for overseas production. [18:45:09] coi la selpa'i [18:45:45] Have we general agreement on putting formal grammar chapter in separate book (with addition of mention of that fact in base CLL)? [18:46:51] noras: I think that is copvered by the fact that Robin has included the EBNF in the current proof but not the YACC, so it will have to be separate, Exactly HOW it will be issued can be discussed in the regular meeting. [18:48:13] I would like to suggest that we explicitly give Robin the discretion to include or exclude YACC, as necessary to expediently prepare for publication, with the additional proviso that if YACC is not included, that the availability of YACC is discussed in the edition. [18:48:17] I will note that we are at 1:45 of this session Do we want to break at the hour for another day or continue for up to an additional hour? [18:48:18] do we need some kind of motion to say the LLG endorses Robin's proof? it's unclear to me whether that is necessary since we already moved to authorize the money [18:48:47] (well, epkat moved, but then he resigned, so it's kind of a ghost motion or something) [18:49:28] durka: that motion has not yet been voted (and I have not recognized the resignation so as to allow it to continue until voted upon). [18:49:37] I agree with taking out the YACC grammar from CLL1.1 if deemed beneficial [18:49:41] lojbab: je'e [18:51:46] well I don't have obligations in the next hour and it might be fun to discuss mukti's BPFK proposal [18:51:48] No answer on continuing beyond the hour. We will likely be talking about byfy,w hich almost certainly will not be completely finished today evenw ith an additional hour. [18:52:12] jinx, whoops [18:52:24] lojbab: I have this meeting down for 11-2 EST, so would be glad to continue at least for the next hour [18:52:27] I'm here for at least 6 more hours :) [18:52:38] I will hear suggestions for when to have the next session as well. Probably not more than 1/week and maybe better 1/ 2 weeks. [18:52:39] At least Guskant ceased to take part [18:52:56] <@xalbo> I approve of continuing. [18:53:23] as for me I'm free for about one hour more [18:53:38] .i ta'o coi la xalbo [18:53:39] long time [18:53:46] We can perhaps do the next session an hour or two earlier for guskant's benefit, but I don't jnow how many present are on the US west coast, which is the other extreme, [18:53:50] Well - if we start discussing byfy and don't finish, it'll increase likelyhood of everyone "attending" the next session because things will be up in the air. So - ie e'u ranji [18:54:19] Is there a *long-term* plan for when to transition this process to Lojban?[C [18:54:54] banseljaj, are you on west coast time? [18:54:55] Guskant is pretty good at English, but the rest of the ponjbopre aren't. I've been speaking to them in Lojban and they're rather annoyed on the whole that we still do everything in English. [18:55:20] this process? Do you mean the meeting discussions? Or having the merely having the channel go to Lojban? [18:55:34] ua nai ru'e .i xu ki'icne lo ka bangu pilno kei lo jbobau [18:55:37] For instance they'd like new words to be defined in Lojban as well as English when they're put into the dictionary, please. [18:56:18] mungojelly: Yeah, I expect so [18:56:32] lojbab: Just in general, it seems increasingly odd to me over the years that these discussions continue to be in English. Now that there are non-English speaking Lojbanists it's becoming really painfully inappropriate. Just saying. :( [18:56:47] mungojelly: but who can add new definitions if not they themselves? [18:56:49] I always do that with my words (granted I don't create that many words) [18:56:55] mi xenru lo nu na tolcafne fa lo nu mi jmina lo glibau po'o velski JVS [18:57:21] .i sa'e na'e tolcafne [18:57:26] gleki: If the only definition is in English then someone who doesn't speak English can't translate that definition?! [18:57:31] Back when we last considered going to Lojban in meetings, there was a committee that was going to devise the words and forms needed for parliamentary procedure. Nothing was ever completed to my knpowledge. [18:57:35] no'i, so what do we think about mukti's BPFK recharter proposal? I like it, I think it's high time the BPFK considered the reality that there are several dialects of Lojban [18:58:05] Lojban should become the lingua franca of our community. Not today, entirely, but in general, long-term. Obviously. [18:58:35] I have not had time to consider the specifics of the proposal in depth - I saw it only a few minutes before logging on. [18:58:54] my apologies for not distributing it earlier [18:59:12] Some specifics will have to be discussed, but I overall approve. [18:59:30] personally, my Lojban is not good enough (though I hope it will one day be so) to participate in an LLG meeting real-time like this. I could do it on the mriste. [18:59:31] mi'u -- me too [18:59:50] (that's weird how {mi'u} and "me too" sounds similar) [18:59:55] I would like considered as an alternative disbanding byfy *for now*. [19:00:00] I also note that Lojbab said at the beginning of the meeting that posts could be made in other languages (but nobody has done so) [19:00:01] mungojelly: Perhaps it would be possible to gradually adopt lojban proceedings. Maybe a good place to start would be BPFK. Presumably the most active members of BPFK will have a level of lojban such that they are capable of holding some sessions entirely in lojban. [19:00:03] disbanding? why? [19:00:19] sa'e mi tugni la selpa'i [19:00:26] I wouldn't want LLG to prescribe that to BPFK, but I can imagine BPFK might want to take up such an initiative on its own. [19:01:08] ie [19:01:37] mukti: It would be nice if the people talking about the future of Lojban spoke it, but that's not my general impression. I'm on speaking terms of course with the dozen or so people who are actually fairly fluent in Lojban and none of them have much of anything to do with this process. [19:01:48] I approve of mukti's proposal too [19:01:57] As I recall selpa'i and Ilmen, who have been some of the most active BPFK workers over the last year, have discussed working in lojban [19:02:09] I approve of mukti's proposal too [19:02:14] I would like the mission statement. Is it just description? [19:02:20] durka: to best answer, we need to agree what the next task(s) for byfy. I think that the next step is one in which the formal committee concept is probably not all that useful because of the whole issue of membership. [19:03:03] I am not sure that we need a jatna either, in the sense that Robin has been (i.e a dictator-in-chief). [19:03:16] By the way, the cmavo description task of BPFK is pretty close to completion [19:03:36] <@xalbo> The idea, as I understand it, is for the BPFK to be a working group, with some fluidity as to how membership is decided and how proposals are approved. But the rigor is that any proposals BPFK does make need approval by LLG. [19:03:57] Ilmen: what does "pretty close" mean? How long to completion? [19:04:34] In particular, I am concerned about any change proposals (are they part of BYFY still?) that invalidate already-written text or understanding; this discourages creation and learning of the current state. [19:04:37] <@xalbo> In essence, the LLG apppoints BPFKJ, BPFKJ decides how to appoint BPFK, BPFK proposes to LLG, LLG approves or disapproves, and then chooses a new BPFKJ. [19:05:08] To my mind, the most important role the chair of BPFK plays is to act as the official point of contact between LLG and BPFK. Without such a point of contact, the relationship between LLG and BPFK is unclear. [19:05:11] lojbab: I can't say for sure how long it can take, but last time I assessed the cmavo section state, all the cmavo had a definition, and only a handful of them had some blanks like "XXXX" in them (about 4~5 cmavo) [19:05:13] noras: precisely why the BPFK should be able to consider multiple standards. then we can describe lojban as she is spoken without invalidating anything [19:05:38] In You're Doing It Wrong, Robin proposes that the LLG "exists only to deal with monetary matters, and the BPFK is for language definition issues." [19:05:49] What does "multiple standards"ean? [19:05:54] mean? [19:05:57] noras: I dont think it will change much. The question is about relatively seldom used constructs. But note that a lot of previous texts contain mistakes and thus those texts can't be recommended as learning resources. [19:06:08] noras: The spoken language does change, regardless of what's proposed. Many experiments are ongoing, many past experiments have been broadly accepted into the language as it's spoken. [19:06:10] selpahi: The 2008 Annual Meeting also passed similar language which is supposed to accompany the announcement of each annual meeting. [19:06:31] "the LLG is a business organization, and is only tangentially in the business of running the Lojban language" [19:06:40] http://www.lojban.org/tiki/LLG+Meeting+Summary+2008 [19:06:42] <@xalbo> noras: The possiblity that there will be future changes discourages current production, but the problem is that right now, current production is hampered by a lingering sense of uncertainty. [19:07:10] mukti: Right, but voting and being able to say no to what the BPFK comes up with is a power. [19:08:23] noras: and in fact xorlo reform already invalidated older texts. It wasn't me who approved of that reform but exactly as you are saying it already discouraged producing new texts. We can't do anything now but to stabilize Lojban at a new level now with xorlo approved. The previous attempt of freezing the language seems to have failed. [19:08:49] it's a language, it can't be frozen [19:09:02] Freeze it, kill it [19:09:03] The original idea as evolved in the first year or two of byfy, was I think that havinbg finished CLL1.1, we would be considering all of the proposed changes as a single lump, them having been implicit considered as part of the voting on individual sections,. [19:09:18] .i sa'u lo nu fanta lo nu cenba cu nu catra [19:09:22] .u'i [19:09:49] but if we can say "that is correct according to Lojban '97 (or whatever it is called)", and "that is correct according to Lojban '14", then we don't have to hold new texts/speakers hostage to old ones [19:09:56] selpahi: I agree that it's a power, but I also think that it is necessary for BPFK and LLG to have a formal relationship. I tried to come up with a proposal that avoids the current problem, where BPFK is completely under the thumb of LLG, while avoiding another potential problem where BPFK's activity becomes completely independent of LLG's values. [19:10:51] mi tugni la mukti [19:10:57] The single lumop idea did not presume that experimental usages (in experimental cmavo space) would be formally decided at this point. [19:11:15] The current proposal limits LLG's power to recognizing or not recognizing the work of BPFK. If LLG withholds recognition from BPFK's work, I find it likely that no one will volunteer to do the BPFK work. Which is explicitly envisioned as a possibility. [19:12:06] since LLG and BPFK are roughly the same people, that's unlikely anyway [19:12:18] .u'i [19:12:21] However, given my (admittedly limited) experience with the community, I find it unlikely that LLG would do anything but applaud any progress BPFK makes. [19:12:31] (Also, what xorxes said.) [19:12:34] ie [19:13:09] My concern is only that I have seem some proposals for changes that would, pe'i, make Lojban not-Lojban (such as the last letter of gismu shows which place of the bridi) [19:13:26] u'e [19:13:47] never seen this [19:14:05] xorxes: that is more or less why I am not so sure we need a formal BPFK at this time. Once the precriptive era completely ends, then the concept of BPFK as a standards group which really does need to be indepenednt of LLG seems more important. [19:15:03] the prescriptive era is likely to still last a few decades, I would think [19:15:18] judging from past experience [19:15:21] mukti: indeed! BPFK results aren't really rejectable at this point. [19:15:38] It's socially determined what's actually permitted to change. For instance the formal experimental cmavo space is x*, but people are actually experimenting now in the CV'VV. There's social pressure on Curtis Franks to stop making so many of them, but it's because of how many and the style of them, not because they're CV'VV instead of the authorized x-space. [19:16:19] My only complaint is that curtis doesnt provide usage examples but that's mostly due to jbovlaste limitations [19:16:20] I would like to see the formal prescriptive era to end with CLL2.0 and the and dictionary publication. [19:16:42] It could be nice in theory if we had some formal process for deciding where people should experiment but at the moment it's determined by a set of taboos, by people complaining about things that feel disruptive to them. [19:16:59] even if it did, that's likely several years [19:17:15] I thought CV'VV was also officially designated experimental space, but I think you're right in general yeah [19:17:33] xorxes: ie [19:17:47] Yes - CV'VV is experimental - see page 51 of current CLL [19:18:00] xorxes: I think much of the dissatisfaction is that we have let it continue so long. If we can figure out how to speed it up, then many problems disappear. [19:18:21] but "give up and disband" does not speed it up, in my view [19:18:30] right [19:18:43] Disband != give up. [19:19:39] ma te frica [19:19:43] I'd be happy for disbanding BPFK to be considered alongside a policy like the one I set forth. It would be good to know what the will of the community is. In any case, I'm confident that the status quo -- BPFK as defined by the 2002-2003 policy -- is making no one happy. [19:20:12] Personally, I very much would like to see a working BPFK. [19:20:15] It means that we don't (necessarily) have a jatna appointed by LLG The workers on BPFK can of course choose whatever leader(s) they wish. [19:21:09] The process I support is a federation of autonomous collectives. Such a process doesn't require central coordination of course, so I'm not asking for any support or acknowledgement, just saying, that's the way I'm heading. [19:21:29] And as at present, the membersof BPFK at any time are pretty much those who do something. [19:21:38] <@xalbo> lojbab: I don't understand what you're proposing. Disband BPFK, change its structure, something else? [19:21:43] I think I misunderstood "disband" [19:21:55] I hope J.Cowan wont assume that his opinion is no longer listened to during BPFK-related discussions [19:22:02] I'd like to point out that my proposal explicitly does not recommend that the BPFK jatna be appointed, which is a major difference with the current policy. [19:22:09] <@xalbo> Yeah, I took "disband" to mean "no more BPFK" [19:22:39] (Though it does require LLG to reaffirm the relationship with BPFK through a ratifying vote.) [19:23:26] gleki: You mean la balgenpre ? [19:23:31] There is a lot of work left to be done for BPFK or whoever. The language is severly underdocumented when it comes to its semantics. [19:23:32] By disband, I mean that the formal organization would no longer exist as a (quasi-independent) committee of LLG. There would still be the presumably informal group of "whoever is working on the standard at the moment" [19:24:11] It is part of the standard for Lojban that semantics are not prescribed. [19:24:27] <@xalbo> ue [19:24:33] I know that is your position. [19:24:38] Incidentally yeah if someone actually were to work on a descriptive accounting of Lojban as it's actually spoken today, that would be crazy useful to me and to everyone. It's a lot harder to actually figure out what's going on that to just assert untrue things, though. :/ [19:24:40] But it's not even *described* either [19:24:45] Shouldn't Lojban be able to be unambiguously translated to formal predicate logic formulae? [19:24:55] Yes. [19:25:03] Absolutely. [19:25:24] Ilmen: no [19:25:36] If byfy is only descriptive, I'm probably OK. Again, my concern is that those most wanting to *revise* the language would predominate and thus try to "evolve" the language by fiat. [19:26:14] That doesn't work anyway. [19:26:24] Yeah, we informally worked out on IRC a set of transformations from the spoken crunched up form to a sort of perfect ideal extended form we have a shared sketch of in our heads. Everything expands out into simple bridi explaining the relationships in the sentence, I guess that's the deep form of it. Beautiful language. [19:26:31] ma na gunka sei malgli [19:26:39] There are a lot of things (the descriptive accounting, the formal predicate logic translation, the semantics) that MIGHT be produced by a byfy. But the next step is to finish the cmavo definitions, and approve any needed changes, and put out CLL2.0 ... [19:26:43] Fiats don't work. [19:26:47] je'e [19:26:47] mukti: i mean if BPFK's work isnt official then xalbo, aionys, Cowan might assume that their votes no longer mean anything and thus they are driven out of Lojbanistan [19:26:56] and a ddictiomnary that would (finally!) include the cmavo. [19:27:33] I expect there to be many disagreements going forward, as there have been in the past. However, I'm not aware of anybody who is trying to reduce lojban to their personal or proposed understanding of it. There's a lot of tolerance for language varieties at all levels. [19:28:23] I got sick enough of jbovlaste BTW that I made my own dictionary for less formal descriptions of things: https://github.com/mungojelly/mlevlaste Anyone feel free to push me changes. la mlevlaste:la jbovlaste::Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:Encyclopedia Galactica [19:29:27] I see the next major job to be extracting from the cmavo definitions a complete set of change proposals (which I would actually like to see written as a set of change pages to CLL 1.1, thereby making CLL2.0 relatively easy to produce). [19:29:57] It's going to be very hard to produce the content, since so much has changed, and most of the examples are out of date. [19:30:05] xorlo needs a new chapter. [19:30:19] I suggest that we assign someone to monitor all commits to github CLL and then when time comes present the changelog to LLG members. [19:30:22] For which I suggest using guskant's write-up as a potential basis [19:30:24] (or parts of it) [19:30:26] That job is probably done best informally more or less the way things have been done for the last few years.. [19:30:45] So we're talking about catching up about the standard old cmavo, right? We're not really talking about catching up to lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai even which is years and years ago now?! [19:31:19] mungojelly: I think some aren't aware that Lojban '97 isn't spoken much anymore. [19:31:25] and that existing job has been neither helped nor hindered by the existence of a jatna,. [19:31:36] I'm afraid lo'ai/sa'ai isnt for CLL 1.1. It will take a lot of time to integrate many other fixes. It's for CLL 2.0 [19:31:38] That'd be nice somehow to see lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai acknowledged somewhere as formally existing, I'd feel nice about that somehow, as if spoken Lojban had finally gotten some recognition or something. [19:31:44] My concern with the status quo of BPFK and the Baseline Policy might be fairly boiled down to the idea that if LLG continues on the path of declaring what *other* people should do, then we can expect for the work to continue to fail to get done. [19:32:16] indeed [19:32:40] If people want to include some of the experimental cmavo in 2.0. that seems fine by me. IF they get proposed with change pages to CLL so we know what has changed. [19:32:55] selpahi: Lojban '97 was very rarely spoken, it was a literary language. And today's Lojban is rarely spoken out loud, it's still a typed language. But we're at the edge of that next transition. [19:33:01] If LLG's policy is that CLL 2.0 must be composed of change-proposals relative to lojban-97, then we had better know where we can find some people interested in doing that kind of work. [19:33:05] za'a la kanxe cu di'a .irci [19:33:09] I'm not aware of any such people. [19:33:24] Yeah I think of the old standard as a historical curiosity. [19:33:40] I'm roughly as interested in documenting our differences with mijyjbo. [19:33:59] As for me, I use only what is in CLL/ If someone uses one or more experimental cmavo, I have utterly no idea what they have said, and no idea where to look it up. This is one reason why I haven't made actually using the language a priority. [19:34:30] But I mean I guess I could help if it was in some context that felt like it was being respectful to the new language and its speakers. I wouldn't want to be involved in something that's prescribing after all this time that it's OK for people to start saying lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai, that seems rude somehow. [19:34:43] I'm not even talking about new cmavo. The existing cmavo are used differently too. [19:34:49] If the language has changed so much from the CLL version in actual usage, I likely will never bother to learn it. [19:34:53] lojbab: That's absurd. You need to learn the language we speak or get out. [19:34:54] For example ZAhO [19:35:08] May I say in short what I suppose should be done? Let me imagine one scenario. 1. robin says: now you may push requests to gihub CLL into one of the branches. Then members of LLG start pushing requests and one of us (e.g. Mukti or me or whoever is assigned) accept them checking whether they dont break the flow of the explanations in the book. 3. Then this person reports to LLG what has been done. 4. Following LLG's resolution neces [19:35:14] lojbab: What are you going to find people who want to learn that Lojban too? What do you even mean? Learn Lojban! [19:35:26] .e'o sai ko sarji la .lojban. [19:35:33] .e'o sai ko ba'e cilre fi la .lojban. [19:36:13] gleki: your post is cut [19:36:27] It's a living spoken language. It doesn't need advice about its own grammar, it doesn't need to be told how its grammar works by people who can't speak it. It needs introductory materials. And speakers. [19:36:40] Ilmen: doesnt it end in mu'o? [19:37:01] gleki: "Following LLG's resolution neces---" [19:37:03] mungojelly: what is the reference of "la lojban"? If it is not CLL, I have no way to know what it is. [19:37:03] I mean, if you read xorxes' Alice in Wonderland, that's roughly how we speak Lojban nowadays (me anyway). If the language in that book looks weird to you, you might get lost speaking with modern Lojbanists. [19:37:14] mukti: I'm on Pakistan Standard Time. Sorry I dropped off. [19:37:22] There are some changes in addition to it, like {ka} being very common now [19:37:23] banseljaj: ua sai [19:37:25] lojbab: "I only use what is in CLL" is like being a modern English speaker and saying "I only use what's in shakespeare." It's completely absurd. [19:37:35] We simply understand the language better [19:37:59] May I say in short what I suppose should be done? Let me imagine one scenario. [19:37:59] 1. Robin says: now you may push requests to github CLL into one of the branches. Then members of LLG start pushing requests and one of us (e.g. Mukti or me or whoever is assigned) accept them checking whether they dont break the flow of the explanations in the book. 3. Then this person reports to LLG what has been done. [19:38:00] so the language use has changed [19:38:04] 4. Following LLG's resolution necessary changes (like e.g. rolling some commits back) are made. 5. Another report is done 6. CLL 2.0 is printed. mu'o [19:38:28] ki'e gy [19:38:30] It may be absurd, but it is reality. If I joined an IRC channel or talked with you on the phone, that would be what I would use. And I have no idea how to even learn that which is not documented. [19:38:50] ^ that's what bother me most [19:38:55] I am extremely poor in learning languages, you may understand. [19:39:01] We all have learned an undocumented form of Lojban though, but yes, it's still a problem. [19:39:16] Most of what had to change in order to make Lojban a speakable language was the gismu meanings had to be jiggled. Our collective understanding of the meanings has been jiggled just enough until we could get our thoughts through. [19:39:29] Oh also there's a lot that was jiggled around in the logical implications of things. [19:39:39] There's a coherent semantics to spoken Lojban today. [19:39:47] That xorlo wasn't integrated into CLL or any other printed documents. This cause huge problems with the language. We need to finally document the current state of affairs and out it on paper. [19:40:07] And there wasn't to the old theoretical language before it was spoken, or at least if you tried to say anything people would explain to you how your statement had really weird implications. [19:40:12] gleki: iesai [19:40:18] Today's Lojban has a sensible set of implications around everything, it's very practical. [19:40:19] At the risk of sounding like I'm proposing to cut a baby in two: I don't see a necessary conflict in between lojbab's position that his understanding of lojban is defined by CLL , and the position of those like myself who speak a newer variety of the language. [19:40:55] neither me. [19:41:02] Not if they are recognized as different versions [19:41:02] mukti: But he's not saying he has that understanding. If there were someone SPEAKING a CLL Lojban, that'd be cool. I'd go chat with them and try to follow those rules. That community has never existed. [19:41:14] Those positions can't co-exist under the 2002-3 Baseline Policy. But I see that as a defect in the policy, not in the way that we all use lojban. [19:41:22] There's only one spoken Lojban. We should probably document that one and not a fantasy. [19:41:22] Agreed [19:41:33] @mukti [19:41:35] Then someone needs to document the new version. [19:41:36] So, I see byfy as the way toward documenting the "newer variety" or newer varieties. [19:41:48] yeah [19:42:04] That'd be great. I'd really like if someone would try to produce comprehensive documentation of Lojban as it's spoken. Very useful. [19:42:06] AndI'm not opposed to xorlo. I'm opposed on how politically and technically it was done. "No, you dont speak correct Lojban - How do you know? - I'm one of the authors of xorlo? - I have no idea what is xorlo. I just bought CLL, nothing is said there about it." [19:42:24] *AndI'm not opposed to xorlo. I'm opposed on how politically and technically it was done. "No, you dont speak correct Lojban - How do you know? - I'm one of the authors of xorlo. - I have no idea what is xorlo. I just bought CLL, nothing is said there about it." [19:42:29] Yes, it was messy. [19:42:31] I think it can be such a vehicle. But one of the problems with the current definition of BPFK, is that it's primary task is to flesh out the documentation of CLL. [19:42:40] But it was necessary in order to get the language in working order. [19:43:29] There's other changes than xorlo that have been made I think that are equally significant but they're less easy to explain or fight over, they're in the deep implications of things. [19:43:29] If byfy as-is won't serve the purpose of documenting newer version(s), then let's set up byfy-2 to do so. [19:43:53] What's the sense in talking in English about documenting Lojban, though? [19:44:17] I'm sure when Robin says "Go!" the version on github will get a lot of contributors. [19:44:41] So what is needed to flesh out the new 1.1 CLL in order to describe/prescribe the current language at the same level. Adding in semantics would be a whole new chunk, even assuming that someone has an idea how to document semantics in language people can understand. [19:44:53] We can get more people involved by speaking English-- but not, necessarily, more people who know enough about modern Lojban to document it. [19:45:19] English conversation about Lojban these days is pointless bikeshedding, Lojban conversation about Lojban is all very practical and productive and focused on making the language work. [19:45:20] Our problem isn [19:45:48] noras: I would love to see people continue the work of BPFK as originally envisioned, although my main concern is to remove obstacles from the work that most people expect BPFK to be doing. [19:45:59] If that requires two such bodies, so be it! [19:46:14] Our problem isn't so much number of people, but number of people who actually get some unit of work to completion. most stuff gets partially done and then dropped. [19:47:09] For now I'm only independently formalizing the interaction of te sumti within each gismu and collecting usage examples for all words inclduing cmavo. I should say MOST te sumti have never been used. 90% of the language is a hole that only has obscure definiions in gimste. As for other parts of semantics (if what I just said is relevant to semantics) what are they? Defining certain gismu in terms of other gismu in pure Lojban? [19:47:25] mungojelly: mi pacna lo nu byfy cu ta'e casnu bau lo jbobau [19:47:48] <@xalbo> I put some work into BPFK. At the time, I thought the purpose was to document the cmavo (including any changes). It seems now like what's being said is that I should have been proposing changes straight to CLL, instead of on a separate page. [19:48:07] documenting cmavo is also important [19:48:17] as of now the BPFK sections are a much better cmavo reference than the ma'oste [19:48:18] <@xalbo> So now I feel like I'm being told that the existing BPFK pages are a waste of everyone's work, sorry, redo it as diffs against a different document or it doesn't count. [19:48:21] xalbo: to what page have you been proposing it? [19:48:22] gleki: to'u lo si'o sko'opu [19:48:29] mukti: la'a nai jbobausnu ku'i .i drata jitro bo lanxe .i mu'a mi binxo lo mutce vlipa lo nu jbobau ra'u casnu .i cinmo na'e djica .ai fa du'e ca vlipa [19:48:54] <@xalbo> The BPFK pages on the wiki (I think Attitudinal modifiers, or something, but that's not the point.) [19:49:12] I don't see anyone (except lojbab, maybe, I'm still not sure) saying those pages need to go away [19:49:28] I think the term "semantics" is too broad. For me "semantics" was always something like mlismu or WordNet [19:49:29] yeah those are really well done, xalbo, i remember reading through those pages and thinking, shit, wow, someone finally documented all this stuff [19:49:37] I hope those will be finished soon and put into a real dictionary [19:49:48] <@xalbo> .u'u de'a jundi [19:49:51] co'oxy [19:49:52] xalbo: finishing CLL 1.1 (which is essentially correcting all the typos and known errors in the 1997 edition) was the first job. Now we can turn to documenting how 1997 Lojban has changed until the present (in cmavo space first, gismu changes should come later) [19:50:06] xalbo: how can you push anything to CLL? We dont have a ready-to-commit CLL yet. [19:50:29] I see the writing of CLL (or new textbooks for that matter) as orthogonal to the work of BPFK. I would expect the authors of such text to use the output of BPFK in their work, but would not expect BPFK to produce popular documents. [19:50:31] lojbab: .. when exactly were you planning to document how the gismu have changed? Because @gismu just tweeted an "official" definition of zabna, confusing the fuck out of everyone, sigh. [19:51:35] mungojelly: from where do they take definitions? Robin (the jatna at that time) changed their definitions by fiat. Everyone including lojbab approved. [19:51:38] At least people have stopped telling each other that they're "using mabla wrong." At least we've collectively come to an understanding that we can't wait for official recognition and that it is absolutely clearly definitely the definition itself that's wrong. [19:52:02] The result of whatever BPFK does has to be in some sort of document. That doument will (eventually) supersede CLL as THE standard for the language. If BPFK produces no product, what is the standard? [19:52:10] gleki: .i ku'i ma'a na zifre lo ka ningau lo jbovlaste smuvelski pe la'o me. officialdata .me (to nu bebna ie toi) [19:52:42] lojbab: The standard for the language is the expressions produced by its most competent speakers, for instance its highest pieces of art, as in other living languages. [19:52:54] selpahi: ja'ozo'o la'o gy.officialdata.gy. zmadu la camgusmis lo ka vlipa i uinai la'o gy.officialdata.gy. na remna [19:52:55] I also see the documentation of language change (diachronic, in linguistic terms) as a separate task from the description of any stage of the language as it is spoken ("synchronic") [19:53:10] (Anotjher purpose of long-term BPFK was to be the certification of Lojban materials as being compliant with the standard, but you need a standard first. [19:53:47] Both are interesting tasks, but I think we erect an unnecessary obstacle in yoking them together [19:53:49] mukti: Yes, good point. A version can be documented without also having to explain how it differs from any given other version [19:54:07] I think it'd be an interesting experiment to see whether a language could be produced by prescriptive fiat, but this is no longer a place where that experiment can be properly conducted. [19:54:10] I have no idea what @gismu is. I use the 1994 gismu list, and only that list, when I write. [19:54:23] the requirement to phrase everything as diffs against a version of Lojban that few speak, and nobody is willing to finish documenting, is the catch-22 that we need to remove (or one of them, anyway) for BPFK to be effective [19:54:39] Yes, I think so. [19:54:41] And I don't have a cell phone, so I have no idea what is being tweeted (or any other form of social networking). [19:54:49] lojbab: Do you? Do you write in Lojban? It's not that hard, you'd pick it up in a few months if you seriously tried. [19:55:09] To my mind, for example, one of the significant barriers to understanding the contemporary gadri system -- the one that has been in use for the last decade -- is that almost all of the materials describe it diachronically [19:55:13] lojbab: I'd be happy to speak to you on the old fashioned phone system. Or, heck, I'll write you paper letters. [19:55:21] You can't tell me you're not up to date on paper. :p [19:55:48] @gismu tweets random lines from the 1994 gismu.txt, as far as I can tell [19:55:53] The definition on jbovlaste for "zabna" and "mabla" are still the old ones, which nobody uses. Robin tried to get the new definitions approved by "fiat", but we still can't update officialdata on jbovlaste. But who can? Why don't we update zabna and mabla? [19:56:08] durka42: well, but reusing CLL's content is easier than rewritting whole chapters from scratch :p [19:56:20] well, we _can_, we have the keys [19:56:29] Yes, but we socially can't. [19:56:29] we just don't use them out of some sense of propriety/officialism [19:56:42] Do it right now, then. Put up the real definition. Stop confusing the nintadni. [19:57:03] I would be in support of that [19:57:12] The change in zabna/mabla's meaning has been officially and exceptionally approved, as far as I remember. [19:57:17] x1 is fucked is the definition. you don't even need any x2 or x3 at all, fuck em. x1 is shitty, x1 sucks, x1 is so so bad, fuck that x1, fuck it. that's all. [19:57:18] several times [19:57:51] One barrier I think is that the policy is dense and contradictory. Anyone who understands, for example, ZG raise their hands. [19:58:02] mungojelly: If that is the definition, and I never use "fuck", then I repeal the work "malglico" [19:58:11] If this meeting results in a proper definition of "mabla" being posted then I'll have to eat my words that nothing will come of this meeting. Just that alone would be fantastic. [19:58:34] Even before ZG, the Baseline Policy of 2002-3 is a huge document, with large segments devoted to a hopeful period once the BPFK had completed its work. [19:58:50] @xalbo: I agree that the existing cmavo pages are indeed very useful to many people, once they are approved. Thecurrent text presumably can be turned into dictionary definitions rather easily. But they also need to be turned into descriptive text like CLL.. [19:58:58] I move to update the jbovlaste entries for {mabla} and {zabna}. Can I get a second? [19:59:00] noras: Well in English you have to talk unrelatedly about sex or excrement or whatever. In Lojban mal- just adds a swearishness without any particular context other than what you're adding it to. [19:59:02] The definition most use is: x1 is execrable/deplorable/wretched/shitty/awful/rotten/miserable/contemptible/crappy/inferior/low-quality in property x2 by standard x3; x1 stinks/sucks in aspect x2 according to x3. [19:59:31] durka42: if one wants to keep officialdata's def, why not adding the new official def with 10001 upvotes? :) [19:59:44] mostly because until they have made it imnto CLL form as well, CLL is incompatible with the cmavo pages. [19:59:53] Mungojelly: Yes, but I don't swear [19:59:54] Ilmen: 20000 [19:59:57] ie [19:59:59] I'd like to recognize that there is something definitively heroic about the fact that, despite the tangled process and the frustration of not being able to make needed changes for years, people still care. [20:00:05] selpahi: ok yeah property for x2, that's useful, i don't see it used much but that's what you'd say "mabla lo ka skari" screwed up in what colors it is [20:00:06] This is a good thing. This is hopeful. [20:00:22] okay, motion amended to give 20000 updates to the new-and-approved definitions of mabla+zabna [20:00:23] (But let's not take it for granted.) [20:00:28] whoops [20:00:32] okay, motion amended to give 20000 upvotes to the new-and-approved definitions of mabla+zabna [20:00:44] mukti: ie [20:00:51] mukti: clearly, there is a lot of pent-up frustration as well [20:01:11] I'll make my motion on the mriste if noone seconds it here [20:01:22] We can't vote here. [20:01:28] noras: I bet you have words in your idiolect that count as swears to you. I think it's an instinct. I've heard people use a whole different part of their brain for swear than for other words, which matches my feeling. [20:01:55] I approve @durka42 for the upvotes [20:02:09] Then you should also update {lo} ... [20:02:14] we can make motions though [20:02:26] mungojelly: I don't know who is a competent speaker. The committee to define such a thing consists of Pierre and has produced little product, [20:02:26] selpahi: I'd like to bulk-update the cmavo definitions from the BPFK pages, as well [20:02:30] but the attitudinals aren't finished [20:02:33] Do I have a definition in mlevlaste yet for {lo}? I don't think so. I should put something silly. [20:02:56] selpahi: maybe we can pull in the BPFK defs by selma'o, then we can do it piecemeal [20:03:03] Good idea [20:03:29] Unfortunately each selma'o has a different style of definition, different level of detail (because different authors) [20:03:36] I don't know if they should be made to match [20:03:54] right [20:03:57] this can be done, though [20:04:07] Aso, maybe it's worth keeping the old-fashioned definition entries. What about concurrent entries? [20:04:20] durka42: only use llg-members mriste. [20:04:22] Just make a new user called BPFK. [20:04:22] (With more upvotes li'a) [20:04:28] gleki: yes that's what I meant [20:04:34] As I understand it, jbovlaste's "official" status is actually pretty murky. Though it seems like a central institution these days, it looked much different on the mriste from 2003-5 or so. It was recognized as "an official project", and some care has been taken to, for example, give extra weight to the old inputs. But I don't know if there is any governing process covering what is proposed. [20:04:47] (i.e. bulk upvoting mabla/zabna) [20:05:05] durka42: mukti since Robin approved new zabna/mabla definitions I suggesttht you indeed ad 20 000 upvotes. It's rather a technical problem. [20:05:23] ie [20:05:27] Which is not to say that the motion is unwelcome. Just that I'm not aware of a governing rule covering this case. [20:05:36] je'e [20:05:41] if you are not then who is aware? [20:05:53] This is hardly a new motion anyway. This is finally bothering to inform people of the decision we made many years ago. [20:05:55] Robin isn't, I am not, then who? [20:06:08] I'm saying this hoping that those with longer institutional memories present may be able to correct me. ;) [20:06:11] it's 2PM (veti'u mi). we have some BPFK cliffhangers. should we talk about a time for next session, or do that by email? [20:06:44] Yeah, I'm going to go to eat pretty soon [20:06:57] mi ca ca'o citka [20:07:07] indeed, I'm leaving. [20:07:10] i co'o [20:07:13] coi la Ilmen [20:07:14] co'o di'ai gy [20:07:14] co'o [20:07:15] co'o la gleki [20:07:19] mukti: your summary of the status of jvovlaste seems correct.. I never use it, I only know how to use real dictionaries. [20:07:21] coi la cilce [20:07:26] gleki: are you going to format and post the log? [20:07:35] It's harder to keep up with on e-mail because it's interspersed with other things. Here, it's more directed, so I'd prefer another session, I guess. [20:07:35] Ilmen: are you speaking french? [20:07:43] Je parle français. [20:07:51] lojbab: ta'o have you seen vlasisku? You might find it easier to use: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/ [20:08:01] (or maybe not ... but I do!) [20:08:04] lojbab: la jbovlaste is rather unfortunately quirky, but i don't know anyone who speaks lojban who's not forced to use it to learn what words mean. [20:08:22] I can't believe people still search through jbovlaste instead of vlasisku, it's so painful [20:08:23] OK on ending the session,. Proposals for the next session can be made on the members list as a point of privilege [20:08:43] lojbab: you assert often that you're bad at learning languages. that's not just inherent to your identity, it consists of something, it results from your actions. for instance refusing to use the main lojban dictionary would result in it being difficult to learn lojban. [20:09:17] thanks everyone who made time for the real-time session [20:09:29] lojbab: lojban is a relatively easy language, with relatively little history still. with your existing knowledge you should be able to become fluent in just a few months of dedicated study if you bothered. [20:09:31] mukti I mean an offline text file. I read text, I don't use apps. My mindset doesn't yet relate to apps, because I don't use a smart phone. [20:09:35] noras: if I can ask, how does your use of mabla/zabna look? "zo fuck mabla lo nu gletu"? "lo ka gasnu lo kalsa cu mabla lo (su'u)? idmigrante"? something else? [20:09:38] (including those who already left) [20:09:55] ie very exciting to discuss these issues with so many people around the globe. I look forward to the continuation on the mriste and the next irc session. [20:10:32] lojbab: please answer my email? english is fine, i speak english. please send me a mailing address and i'll write to you in lojban on paper? [20:11:13] i can understand not wanting to be staring at screens all the time. i'm looking forward to reading my first lojban book on paper sometime. [20:11:38] cirko: As stated in CLL, it's a derogatory version of the word; not necessarily cursing. Example being "shit" as a form of feces as opposed to "fertilizer" as the zan... [20:11:43] lojbab: Some years ago, Robin added a feature to jbovlaste to produce a printable dictionary. In case that interest you: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/export/latex-export.html?lang=en [20:11:54] mungojelly: I have three physical Lojban books! [20:12:21] noras: yes but "it" is the word produced by adding the mal- rafsi, not the x1, the x1 isn't a "derogatory sense," it's the thing being derided [20:12:26] selpahi: oh cool, what are they?? [20:12:27] Aren't there physical copies of Michael Helmsen's first book? [20:12:39] mukti: ziryroi? even i don't read mijyjbo :/ [20:13:01] mungojelly: I made them all by myself with print on demand, they are: The Little Prince, Alice in Wonderland and Lo nu binxo (all by xorxes li'a) [20:13:09] Yeah, {ziryroi} [20:13:36] mungojelly: you are correct that :bad at learning languages" is not an identity thing. It is a practical observation, Better example. I learned Russian before adopting two kids from Russia. I went to Russia and was less than passable at conversing with adults, ... [20:13:45] s/Helmsen/Helsem/ [20:14:13] lojbab: i've never successfully learned a natlang other than English, but i really don't think Lojban is comparably difficult. [20:14:24] Yes, I see that it was advertised in JL15 with "an artistically decorated cover" [20:14:35] though I was able to communicate adequate;y with the kids. The kids took more than a year to learn English, so for most of a year, Russian was a primary language at home. [20:14:44] what selpahi has been complaining about the continuing lack of vocabulary, it's true to some extent, i mean compared to like, hey, russian, sure, quite a small vocab still [20:15:07] which makes it easier if you're trying to catch up [20:15:22] mungojelly: Yes, because I want Lojban to stand on equal footing. Of course Lojban has a huge vocab for a conlang [20:15:22] Thank you everyone for this interesting session of discussion :) [20:15:23] I never became more skilled in Russian in all that time, and never could sustain fluent conversation with an adult. [20:15:55] ge'i lo makcu cu rusko cusku frica lo verba gi la .lojbab. cu jdika lo ni rusybau certu [20:16:45] My results with Lojban have been similar. I still think in English and translate to Lojban in my head. This is slow and very nonfluent. If you send me a letter in Lojban, I will be translating it word for word to Engliah. Because that is all I know how to do,. [20:17:18] lojbab: i was thinking in english all the way up until, i guess it was three days ago. i still slip into it sometimes. [20:17:44] As for me, when I'm writting in Lojban, I do not make any translation in my mind [20:17:50] Me neither [20:17:52] I produce Lojban sentences directly [20:17:58] lojbab: it does take years of serious practice to get to like a completely natural fluency, but it doesn't take that much to get to the point where you can hold a simple conversation [20:17:59] Yeah, I think we still have a dozen copies of ziryroi. [20:18:29] la ziryroi cu mo .a'u [20:18:52] My problem hasn't been lack of vocabulary. It is being stuck in word for word translation mode. [20:19:03] I'm hoping to get to the point where I'm fluent enough that I can think in Lojban without difficulty. I realize it'll be years, but I feel like it'll be worth it. [20:19:03] sezycei: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/Special:WikiForum if u need a forum | 2015-01-17T06:03:35. [20:19:04] 190Z [20:19:04] lojbab: if you let me write you a letter in lojban i'm not going to write the most advanced things i use, i'm going to write like "mi gleki lo nu tavla do fo la .lojban." [20:19:14] durka42: pemci cukta [20:19:20] Here are two photos of my books: http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/8/860862/7672802_orig.jpg http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/8/860862/6160178_orig.jpg [20:19:22] ua [20:19:38] sezycei: I doesn't have to be years [20:19:47] selpahi: ma prina minde kagni pi'o do [20:19:52] melbi [20:19:54] su'o dotco [20:20:16] je'e [20:20:25] mensi: doi gleki I've used all sorts of different forums before, and that one is not in the least way very easy to navigate. I was meaning very literally a PHPBB3 forum or something - something that a lot of people are familiar with. [20:20:25] sezycei: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.gleki.gy. di'a cusku da [20:20:29] selpahi: sezycei: yeah depends on how intensive your study is. if you stopped speaking a word of english right now and just started trying to muddle through in lojban and did nothing else you'd be competent in a week and fluent in two months, seriously. [20:20:29] la'a la'oi viaprinto [20:21:02] mungojelly, but nobody (who has any form of a life) can seriously do that. [20:21:07] selpahi: it's been really interesting getting back to lojban after a while away and seeing how seriously you've been studying it [20:21:11] mungojelly: If there was all the vocab of natural languages, then yes. [20:21:35] Right now a lot of the time you could spend speaking is spent making words instead [20:21:36] sezycei: yeah, but it's sorta a reductio ad absurdum i guess is what i mean. you can't learn lojban very quickly, but it's not really lojban's fault, it's that you've got other shit to do. :D [20:21:39] sezycei: there's also http://lojban.freeforums.net/ [20:21:39] that slows us down a lot [20:21:57] selpahi: nah, you can improvise and me'oi your way through almost anything, come on [20:21:57] Ilmen, that's great! [20:22:01] We held simple conversations in weekly sessions back in the early and mid-90s. But I never got any more fluent (I almost never needed a dictionary back then/ LogFlash worked very well. Even now I can often read Lojban without a dictionary, but it is very slow ... [20:22:18] Now someone needs to just make that a whole lot less ugly and people actually need to make use of it. Haha [20:22:25] and mostly I get hung up on cmavo that others use, that I never really mastered. [20:22:59] lojbab: yeah lojban is certainly overwhelming with the cmavo at first. i've been relieved to get to the point where i'm mostly only learning newly invented cmavo. [20:23:33] lojbab: there's no way out but through, though. you can't carefully study it from the outside until finally you jump in as a fluent speaker all at once. you learn by doing it. [20:23:42] Also, giving it a subdomain/directory on lojban.org would be a really good idea, Ilmen. [20:23:56] In addition, I've lost a lot of my knowledge of rafsi, so it's hard to pick up on short-form words without lookup (which breaks the flow) [20:23:56] lojbab: By the way, we've hold many real-time spoken chats in Lojban in the past few weeks [20:24:22] lojbab: noras: my husband (la ckiku) and i have been starting to speak to each other recently [20:24:45] lojbab: noras: and whenever i ask whether there have been other couples who've spoken lojban, you two are who's mentioned [20:24:45] durka: ziryroi was the first printed Lojban book. Poetry. Not generally grammatical or probably even good Lojban by any standard. I never could read it because it wasn't standard. [20:24:55] My girlfriend and I are also beginning to. I'm just trying to get her past the "weirdness" of it (like saying things like {mi prami do} and whatnot to eachother). [20:25:11] lojbab: noras: so i'm desperately curious, since you've pioneered supposedly this thing i'm trying to do, how did it go? how's it going? what should i know? [20:25:26] I'm wondering the same thing as mungojelly. [20:25:30] i guess it's pretty different because i'm pretty fluent and i'm teaching la ckiku who's a nintadni [20:25:45] (nintadni = beginner) [20:26:10] Thanks, Ilmen, I actually did catch that lujvo meaning [20:26:14] je'e [20:26:44] sezycei: "mi prami do" feels a little stilted to me to actually say to la ckiku, but i say to him ".iu cai", yesterday i called him "dirba" for the first time, that's a good spouse-talking word :D [20:27:12] la ckiku - {la} makes ckiku a name, right? [20:27:18] yes [20:27:19] My biggest challenge in lojban at this point is still lujvo. I'm slow to recognize some rafsi, misrecognize others, and am generally unaware of non-jvajvo particularities. I have, however, made little effort to address these problems. [20:27:23] So your husband's chosen name is {ckiku} [20:27:27] sezycei: yeah, he was named before me actually, he's I X Key so ckiku key [20:27:27] "The Key" [20:27:33] Ahhh [20:27:43] mukti: you sound like you need to play the rolrafcreselkei :D [20:27:44] That sounds awfully inappropriate. [20:28:03] "A curiosity hangs by the thigh of a man, under its master's cloak. It is pierced through in the front; it is stiff and hard and it has a good standing-place. When the man pulls up his own robe above his knee, he means to poke with the head of his hanging thing that familiar hole of matching length which he has often filled before." [20:28:22] mungojelly: I'm sure I could benefit from that, yeah [20:28:24] That's why "Key" sounds awfully inappropriate as a name. Hahaha. Because the answer to that riddle is "key". [20:28:31] Ilmen: presumably spoken chats means Skype. No idea how to do that. No microphone on my machine that I know of, either. [20:28:50] argh [20:28:55] he was just trying to tell you that we do it [20:28:56] lojbab, I think they spoke on Mumble, actually. [20:29:03] the response to "X happens" doesn't always have to be "I don't know how to X" [20:29:07] no offense meant [20:29:11] lojbab: don't you have a regular phone, though? i don't understand why lojbanists have never talked on the phone. have we? have you? [20:29:30] lojbab: i thought maybe the habit of not talking on the phone just went all the way back to when long distance cost extra, and we've just never changed it [20:29:54] sezycei: What are you using to learn Lojban at the moment? [20:30:10] lojbab: well we've been using Mumble, not Skype. I just wanted to let you know that Lojban has reached the stage where people can actually maintain spoken discussions in it during more than one hour :) [20:30:21] Just how often do people have to "learn" lojban? [20:30:24] yeah, the age of spoken lojban is beginning, this is the time [20:30:38] selpahi, the Wave Lessons. I've got to go right now, though. I will be back in a couple hours. co'o ro do [20:30:58] mungojelly: We were the first couple who spoke Lojban. Our wedding vows were in preliminary Lojban in 1987, and we spoke it for a couple of hours on the honeymoon, each of us with maybe 300 words of vocabulary (different words for each of us, ... [20:31:00] mi nelci la sezycei [20:31:15] Umm... Yesour long distance costs extra - still [20:31:17] so much of the conversation was explaining the words we were using, [20:31:27] noras: if you come back from a few months away, you usually have to pick up just a few new cmavo and a few new lujvo. [20:31:41] ie caicni fi lo jbobau [20:32:11] Using Lojban to do something other than talk about Lojban has generally been difficult. Lack of commitment to spend the time. [20:32:13] I [20:32:15] mungojelly: and where do you pick them up from? [20:32:16] lojbab: I'm glad you and nora honored us of you presence. :) [20:32:25] I've gotta take my leave. Goodbye everyone. [20:32:27] noras: here. lojban as a spoken language was born right here. [20:32:31] Bye Ilmen [20:32:34] co'o la .Ilmen. [20:32:39] co'o [20:32:55] My long term project was and remains translation of part of Burton's Arabian Nights, which I did a few pages of more than 20 years ago, [20:33:07] noras: there's also other fora now. twitter is picking up, more people are "tu'itsku" (posting to twitter) as we've been saying, "tu'itsku" was one of the new words i had to learn recently. :) [20:33:11] lojbab: Have you published any of your progress? [20:33:25] zo'o lojban as a "spoken" language - here on IRC. I'm "speaking" now? [20:33:59] noras: well, before that it was just a literary language, just translations. it's finally making the transition to being spoken out loud just right around now. [20:34:43] noras: but for a while the main way it was spoken was here in text. slowing it down to the speed of text made it so more people could be included, i guess. there wasn't enough people at a level to speak out loud before now. [20:35:05] I don't see IRC as very slow, .u'i [20:35:17] We speak (write) very quickly [20:35:21] No twitter. No cell phone. [20:35:29] durka42: well, slow as in, if someone's typing at a slightly different speed, or looking up words, they're not just lost [20:35:59] noras: they're widely available, you know? [20:36:21] mungojelly: right. text is not ephemeral as speech is, so you can look stuff up [20:36:46] the company i use is $100 up front for a phone but then the monthly plans go down to $5. there's another company called scratch wireless where they have $0/month plans. [20:36:58] durka: You are correct that it doesn't have to be "I don't know how". But I am now in my 60s and learning new stuff is harder than it used to be, And I find it harder to be motivated to learn things. Not that I can't, but it just never seems to happen. [20:37:17] ok but if you don't care about lojban--? [20:37:34] i can understand, hey, i don't care about lojban, not that interested any more. lots of people have gone. [20:37:38] mumble ki'a [20:37:47] but here you are, telling us in #lojban that you're not interested? doesn't add up :p [20:37:59] lojbab: na lujvo [20:38:05] lojbab: mumble is a voice chat program [20:38:50] mumble kinda sucks and it's kinda awesome. it's not really meant for chatting in lojban, i feel like. it's meant for first person shooter team coordination. i have no idea if it's good for that. it has special tools for sharing where you are on the game map or something. [20:39:26] but for whatever reason it's what we started using years ago to have voice chats. but there wasn't the critical mass to get them together very often. [20:39:28] Mumble is fine. [20:39:43] It's fired me up to listen to the Mumble sessions. I'm going to have to get my courage up to join in. [20:39:45] mungojelly: we have had a couple of Lojban conversations on the telephone, again back in the 90s. We used to do it every year at LogFest - telephoning Nick Nicolas in Australia, and once we called xorxes in Argentina. I was probably at that time [20:40:21] lojbab: noras: you don't pay for outgoing long distance do you? we could arrange times for people to call you. [20:40:33] the most fluent LOjbanist other than those two. [20:40:52] or the most fluent LEjbanist, amirite [20:40:53] zo'o [20:41:04] from my perspective as a speaker of Lojban, this "official" "meeting" stuff doesn't matter much to me. it's not like i have to speak the way y'all write down, or even teach it to nintadni. [20:41:15] but a couple new speakers of the language, htat'd be huge. [20:41:30] and you already have an intimate knowledge of the grammar and a basic vocabulary. [20:41:44] mukti: I think I posted what I had once to the list, when I rediscovered it after many years. [20:42:04] selpahi finds out how many words the English text has [20:42:16] if you started speaking lojban it'd be important not just in terms of your practical contributions, though those would be important too, it would be important emotionally i feel like [20:42:42] lojban: I'd love to read it if you rediscover it. [20:42:57] that'd really be the beginning of a new age, where lojban really becomes the language of our community [20:43:08] Oh, also: If the source code for the gismu generator resurface, I'm still very much interested in that. [20:43:25] i think we can make lojban the language our community shares, and i think we can do it without fracturing the community, but to do that we have to teach you lojban. it's an easy language, nu'e [20:44:43] mungojelly: It makes sense to me that the more lojban is used, the more the language itself will act as a centripetal force [20:45:16] well we're already to the point where not all lojban speakers are competent in english. we're already there. [20:45:41] It has 250830 words [20:45:45] Very long [20:45:50] i have emails in my inbox to respond to from lojbanists complaining, in lojban, that they don't speak english, so why are the definitions of new words for instance only in english? fair question, no? [20:46:11] Also, I think it will calm some worries about some differences among speakers, since they will appear as differences of style rather than threats to a definitive representation of the language [20:46:13] Yes, fair question [20:46:34] mungojelly, I understand the official meeting stuff is not important to you. But that is what I was doing all those years while others started learning the language, and it led eventually to CLL. And I was not able to shed the responsibility until Robin took on [20:46:41] Maybe if you could upload pictures to jbovlaste.... [20:46:48] all the way up until right this moment, we have been a community whose lingua franca is english. we've discussed in english a theoretical other language lojban. [20:46:49] <@rlpowell> lojbab: Hi. [20:46:59] coi la camgusmis [20:47:05] .ui co'i doi robyn. [20:47:10] .ui .i'i coi la .camgusmis. .io sai [20:47:14] much of it in 2002. coi camgusmis. [20:47:24] .i la .camgusmis. pa moi lo'i jbopli je'u .io [20:47:28] <@rlpowell> mi milxe lo ka bilma [20:47:32] .uu [20:47:50] <@rlpowell> .i ji'a mi nitcu co kurji ky .i la'a mi na mutce jundi [20:48:06] ko ky. kurji [20:48:06] co'i si coi [20:48:15] mukti, I have it. I may repost it after looking at it. [20:48:24] ui sai [20:48:45] .i ko cusku lu coi jbojbe li'u ky. se vau mi doi la .camgusmis. [20:48:56] lo nu penmi cu mulno --------------060609080506070403010906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --------------060609080506070403010906--