Received: from localhost ([::1]:42173 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajUIh-0007Uc-H6; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:27 -0700 Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:34035) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ajUIZ-0007UN-K7 for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:24 -0700 Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id c62so54424741lfc.1 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:19 -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=rh+DCn4OddbiTG/j+p0gDWlN8mUkc07f6nUcqNRagU0=; b=bzQyIcMykzAcCQV+63S4StRoZxo/T3Kq2XTK+/7yDMcWp3UF7GhA71OljG5/JNBG1Z XRJ+sCDM2BO6t7Gsr8ptT2yuABvglkBW2F+rZLmyzyn7ziIyVNAujTKkgaHnj5sZ8NR2 EX2CHhmqFtHXYOVMWFY5vTbrpxwrtsqQpy1l+l6Tt8ZJ5LIbP7emf9Lns29tmHgDkQ8U sXJGhDSZHGqdy4wbefhH3MIG85DGXDSY1Zhh2d6vL24dCR4WHTet2f3D+3f5goPP6t/G dWEvqN4hdhRir9iZ5w+liimE2rQ7vGdF4YtiFlbgA1raZv3zQyHIQ2zRcv63RIBpDeov r03Q== 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=rh+DCn4OddbiTG/j+p0gDWlN8mUkc07f6nUcqNRagU0=; b=KJyXV6rQp0tCIa6zjSNfll8DrB/tgH91POAhNk3A3FgNnidCN0samCMOMht8c+y/gM j3wQqHwmB8L4IYMQJcSgDrtplLcwVnJoj2BvYuzAjtT8q2LFGylcmbPvBlBJxNkGs3OE lSmfYwyuoJsqH0lGLW75muOaRZqbpvY1BrNhKktTT8OtzMri3lmVR23KO39gslyZcAck sxZVnDcQNXdBIEDU9XEQGjPIa9U9X7KXbODEZyILKoHMih0NotrDj1G9oCRnp+SJUUGV pKxlguLq440i0DK1YvqijEpf3A/ynMhFCp8n92geibBb5TptAqWWMAwlEGCPx117JPj8 GEvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIgGhgLyzI4rjKOpjfCvw0bETxhIUEFHyZP6sjRk6oYxVUPVoEk6s89ly08ATC9O/U9G0gPBa7TozQ/pQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.19.234 with SMTP id 103mr4124445lft.9.1458922152314; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.40.8 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.40.8 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:11 -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: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:09:11 +0000 Message-ID: From: And Rosta 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="===============6062475521867909294==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6062475521867909294== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f2450a4cbc0052ee1c838 --001a113f2450a4cbc0052ee1c838 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So "Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any defining standards in whole or in part," means "Whenever there's a Lojban language planning committee, and there's a language definition docked, and a version of Lojban is to have any defining standards"? I'm not being *deliberately* obtuse, but it strikes me that if BPFK and CLL are narrowly defined then the motion is potentially too restrictive and if they're broadly defined then it is potentially misleadingly vacuous. --And. On 25 Mar 2016 13:54, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > I used the words "a" instead of "the" in order to avoid semantic confusion > and/or claims to uniqueness and/or restrictions in scope of meaning. > > The abbreviations are what you think they are and mean what you think that > they mean, which I assume to be defined elsewhere. "BPFK" means "baupla > fuzykamni" which references Lojban language planning committees, which I > assume have been described elsewhere and have some mechanism for formal > establishment. "CLL" means "complete Lojban language > [description/prescription (guide instructions)]"; it is any collection of > documents which are given the authority of describing or prescribing some > and possibly all aspects of the workings of the Lojban language in some or > all of its forms/versions; I assume that this has been described elsewhere > and has mechanisms for establishment elsewhere. Relatedly, although not > necessarily equivalently, an LLG and/or a BPFK may decide that some subset > of Lojban should be standardized in some way; when this happens, the last > condition is satisfied; (for the purpose of future commentaries: this > statement is not meant to be restrictive). It really was just me extracting > the wording from lojbab's statement for its necessary conditions. So, if > you think that these are ill-defined, then you cannot understand what he > said. Otherwise, I am not sure what is unclear about it. > On Mar 25, 2016 08:50, "And Rosta" wrote: > >> I would rather the motion was reworded into clearer language. Despite it >> being presented as being for clarity, it isn't clear. "Whensoever a BPFK >> exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to >> have any defining standards in whole or in part,"??? >> >> So I deffo oppose it in its current wording. I hesitate to comment on the >> intended import, because I'm not sure I've understood what the intended >> import is. >> >> And >> On 25 Mar 2016 09:42, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-03-25 5:13 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : >>> >>>> > 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. >>>> >>>> In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever a BPFK exists, >>>> whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any >>>> defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charged with >>>> maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language or any of >>>> its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to its >>>> grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achieving of >>>> these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (the LLG). >>>> This motion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or >>>> implementation of the existence or practice of any of these conditions; it >>>> merely defines one of possibly many roles (for) which any organization >>>> which is to act as a BPFK will be responsible in fulfilling and conducting >>>> - as well as the implicit establishment of minimal powers associated with >>>> its acting in that capacity. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPFK is the >>>> unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority pursuant to >>>> these goals. >>>> >>> >>> I second that. >>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --001a113f2450a4cbc0052ee1c838 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So "Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, = and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any defining standards in whole= or in part," means "Whenever there's a Lojban language plann= ing committee, and there's a language definition docked, and a version = of Lojban is to have any defining standards"?

I'm not being *deliberately* obtuse, but it strikes me t= hat if BPFK and CLL are narrowly defined then the motion is potentially too= restrictive and if they're broadly defined then it is potentially misl= eadingly vacuous.

--And.

On 25 Mar 2016 13:54, "Curtis Franks" = <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:

I used the words "a" instead of "the" in orde= r to avoid semantic confusion and/or claims to uniqueness and/or restrictio= ns in scope of meaning.

The abbreviations are what you think they are and mean what = you think that they mean, which I assume to be defined elsewhere. "BPF= K" means "baupla fuzykamni" which references Lojban language= planning committees, which I assume have been described elsewhere and have= some mechanism for formal establishment. "CLL" means "compl= ete Lojban language [description/prescription (guide instructions)]"; = it is any collection of documents which are given the authority of describi= ng or prescribing some and possibly all aspects of the workings of the Lojb= an language in some or all of its forms/versions; I assume that this has be= en described elsewhere and has mechanisms for establishment elsewhere. Rela= tedly, although not necessarily equivalently, an LLG and/or a BPFK may deci= de that some subset of Lojban should be standardized in some way; when this= happens, the last condition is satisfied; (for the purpose of future comme= ntaries: this statement is not meant to be restrictive). It really was just= me extracting the wording from lojbab's statement for its necessary co= nditions. So, if you think that these are ill-defined, then you cannot unde= rstand what he said. Otherwise, I am not sure what is unclear about it.

On Mar 25, 2016 08:50, "And Rosta" <= ;and.rosta@gmail.c= om> wrote:
I would rather the motion was reworded into clearer language. = Despite it being presented as being for clarity, it isn't clear. "= Whensoever a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban = language is to have any defining standards in whole or in part,"???

So I deffo oppose it in its current wording. I hesitate to c= omment on the intended import, because I'm not sure I've understood= what the intended import is.

And

On 25 Mar 2016 09:42, "Gleki Arxokuna"= <gleki.= is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


2016-03-25 5:13 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curti= s.w.franks@gmail.com>:

> I think that it can be safely understood that the BYF= Y is charged with maintaining CLL as the defining standard for the language= as a whole and its grammar.

In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever = a BPFK exists, whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is= to have any defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charg= ed with maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language or= any of its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to it= s grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achieving of= these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (the LLG). T= his motion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or implement= ation of the existence or practice of any of these conditions; it merely de= fines one of possibly many roles (for) which any organization which is to a= ct as a BPFK will be responsible in fulfilling and conducting - as well as = the implicit establishment of minimal powers associated with its acting in = that capacity.

Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPF= K is the unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority purs= uant to these goals.


I second that.


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



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


_______________________________________________
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

--001a113f2450a4cbc0052ee1c838-- --===============6062475521867909294== 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 --===============6062475521867909294==--