Received: from localhost ([::1]:38094 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajHIN-0004v7-O8; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:16:15 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.213.54]:33987) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajHIG-0004uv-Be for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:16:12 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id e185so78959757vkb.1 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:16:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=94oHoWpC3CuGrd8HDRanLnkJqw4KUXKoZRkU5gnk9WA=; b=JsLZXYzARUDcaG2V033b0674z4YUCFD5QqyA1RGsAgoMfl5g5L7AsFMHVgoHnqGIvs mvv5AWOxM4OMBHPosBQN/Rwxe6GjRShmyHJueUfHc7yyQVV5RrrbLAjIeRiTgiJI58qA sDUJGLZuV1OPXlbAYdFaTXTRYWIDFnbR+39RWavj5OYe5d6bWGsBvcpawaBqcnEVvHES Zh685ULn0CksfV6wyCet77Ahq89lkn0vPodu4OQiSw4gllGOl+VHwLejw9rZAtNPbhch ehDYUrQ0PitD6LB1QZkes25jkwpq4MFXOUXFGQDeUoF9IfGgylpfY1muL/qIxyq/z6Uh pyiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=94oHoWpC3CuGrd8HDRanLnkJqw4KUXKoZRkU5gnk9WA=; b=c9bfv1F2JoGAAVF3i6IWVnv3Y+7xnDmQRYE4ZTgXXyChTzpPnzMyiVuOG5m/KOxpiz jlD6+UevXWalUn1DPFJD7PQ4pR3f/FKuUykUUWby8WHoO/HPbuwcqgP7Y7quVd+S/uD/ AhIBWzd1uJ0S3TElLPLVdtXenfeH6M1Jn+ttC1MnQnr4bamnQvB5621CZTJn5bW1la4k ZfpHWjJ2eOUWMKXZpPBT0HHde8LXiUH1iSC39fEgwnb5xkgbel3ZzzPh+5vtk1EJgoRZ Q9RWr8szlFwfy4fMr3LWgZ3DIuTuUwi7z5zUykCnj+aZh7j5t7nvuC8UX2A9VyI+hgWc 8VEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK4QLocrXVrYhJbHISqv7c597IdlYkGPJTvk+Ui45d+UXtEuHbtPz306lFTbw/KWv72ZbZNJDMZziwwcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.6.202 with SMTP id g68mr5867535uag.63.1458872162364; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:16:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org> <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com> <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org> <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org> <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:16:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7524140283592678487==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7524140283592678487== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1243ee02b49a052ed62593 --94eb2c1243ee02b49a052ed62593 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to learn in greater detail the reason for the BPFK's decision regarding the purposeful and theoretic rejection of parsers as determining the formal grammar of the language. I also would like to learn of Lojbab's opinions and reasoning concerning this subject. On Mar 24, 2016 6:46 PM, "Craig Daniel" wrote: > > I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically > > approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser, > > which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of > > grammatical correctness. > > I so move. > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 6:18 PM Bob LeChevalier wrote: > >> On 3/20/2016 5:55 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: >> > I think that mukti has made two motions, and both have been seconded. = I >> > do not see any other motions, nor any amendments or request for them. >> > >> > 1. "Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK=E2=80=99s findings on =E2=80= =9Cdotside=E2=80=9D, I move >> > that we do so." >> > >> > 2. "If the chair of BPFK would accept re-appointment to that position,= I >> > would also like ask that we vote to recognize his leadership for anoth= er >> > term." >> > >> > For 2., the conditional probably requires that selpa'i actually say th= at >> > he accepts, but I won't hold up the motion waiting for that. >> > >> > Discussion on either motion can continue if desired, but if I see no >> > explicit objection, or an explicit request to hold up either question >> > for additional discussion, then both motions will be considered approv= ed >> > after end of day next Wednesday (23rd). >> >> Both motions have passed, and selpa'i has accepted reappointment. >> >> No one else has proposed any new motions, but Riley has indicated that >> he has additional ideas in mind. >> >> We do however have the issue brought up earlier in the meeting as to >> whether BPFK will be charged with deciding about the lexicon or about >> definitions (other than the cmavo definitions). I think that it can be >> safely understood that the BYFY is charged with maintaining CLL as the >> defining standard for the language as a whole and its grammar. >> >> I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically >> approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser, >> which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of >> grammatical correctness. I don't particularly like this myself, in part >> because I don't really understand non-YACC grammar definitions and have >> always needed to rely on a parser to know whether what I write is >> "proper", but it isn't my decision. >> >> I think a decision on the current relative importance of producing a >> written dictionary is also something that should be decided, since that >> was in a sense the original motivation for setting up a byfy. We must >> also remember that none of the various online lists and databases of >> words and their definitions is currently in any way official, above and >> beyond the baselined gismu and cmavo lists. >> >> I have a comment on the question of officialness of words, but it isn't >> pertinent to any motion or intended motion that I've seen, and I'm not >> at the moment up to writing it in a form I think appropriate for the >> meeting. I may end up putting it off, and posting to the main list >> outside the meeting. >> >> lojbab >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c1243ee02b49a052ed62593 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like to learn in greater detail the reason for the B= PFK's decision regarding the purposeful and theoretic rejection of pars= ers as determining the formal grammar of the language.

I also would like to learn of Lojbab's opinions and reas= oning concerning this subject.

On Mar 24, 2016 6:46 PM, "Craig Daniel"= ; <craigbdaniel@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

> I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifi= cally
> approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser= ,
> which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of
> grammatical correctness.

I so move.


On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 6:18 = PM Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
On 3/20/2016 5:55 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> I think that mukti has made two motions, and both have been seconded.= =C2=A0 I
> do not see any other motions, nor any amendments or request for them.<= br> >
> 1. "Since we may now vote to affirm BPFK=E2=80=99s findings on = =E2=80=9Cdotside=E2=80=9D, I move
> that we do so."
>
> 2. "If the chair of BPFK would accept re-appointment to that posi= tion, I
> would also like ask that we vote to recognize his leadership for anoth= er
> term."
>
> For 2., the conditional probably requires that selpa'i actually sa= y that
> he accepts, but I won't hold up the motion waiting for that.
>
> Discussion on either motion can continue if desired, but if I see no > explicit objection, or an explicit request to hold up either question<= br> > for additional discussion, then both motions will be considered approv= ed
> after end of day next Wednesday (23rd).

Both motions have passed, and selpa'i has accepted reappointment.

No one else has proposed any new motions, but Riley has indicated that
he has additional ideas in mind.

We do however have the issue brought up earlier in the meeting as to
whether BPFK will be charged with deciding about the lexicon or about
definitions (other than the cmavo definitions).=C2=A0 I think that it can b= e
safely understood that the BYFY is charged with maintaining CLL as the
defining standard for the language as a whole and its grammar.

I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically
approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser,
which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of
grammatical correctness. I don't particularly like this myself, in part=
because I don't really understand non-YACC grammar definitions and have=
always needed to rely on a parser to know whether what I write is
"proper", but it isn't my decision.

I think a decision on the current relative importance of producing a
written dictionary is also something that should be decided, since that
was in a sense the original motivation for setting up a byfy.=C2=A0 We must=
also remember that none of the various online lists and databases of
words and their definitions is currently in any way official, above and
beyond the baselined gismu and cmavo lists.

I have a comment on the question of officialness of words, but it isn't=
pertinent to any motion or intended motion that I've seen, and I'm = not
at the moment up to writing it in a form I think appropriate for the
meeting. I may end up putting it off, and posting to the main list
outside the meeting.

lojbab


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

--94eb2c1243ee02b49a052ed62593-- --===============7524140283592678487== 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 --===============7524140283592678487==--