Received: from localhost ([::1]:47358 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eScY1-000607-LV; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:40:37 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:42547) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eScXK-0005yP-E3 for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:40:06 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b199so25135147wme.1 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:39:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=UBKDgCMv2ekOxXlGvvPSbfZqIszSuwqqqTrIYFzCTh0=; b=GPX3ji6oyVAX72aWWUaHicogo81R4D/H79a504Vvc+Luvo/LoqMcujgsmYPwnyQjOS /46D10fhEM6W2pXwBkvYGOmg8gRky9TKasobCKtsvYFX1q6XyotUIJeOHNLwpCdcRDFN PK24uKD8LaCXNfbzhDo2l/yunWnYhu7e5F6D5OXdFz9Bx1fYqUTPPFScOXCtqMB1WdmX lvNssyqNATVHwsOU8uAWu8xJMNKBY0Vay2TOcZInjIeAJT06eI/nHkF+fzQjiQ0bTWNC SKkpVDFliCnrY9sN8zwzb28LVC2sihwfBeS9KKtC1ysVCcrxZgg9L9FUsgwWqkGO0ffQ NjpQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=UBKDgCMv2ekOxXlGvvPSbfZqIszSuwqqqTrIYFzCTh0=; b=paoI6VLFOwNqH8mzuGVyYv20mKb6UVcsddCM7PdcpSRbjcpChBsFugLiWmkgLdH8K9 /Iw9SVcAuQDKAr6ZWQT1IMILDf+PToIhKbNuBO8hhjEzhW38HPZau5CcuK4huIuqpUvi leQWecN5Wn++/Z8eyuLc6D0OcFF3OyxA0xrMBW47rvLK3L9nHy+BsLkur0/mlJ5Ae/LU l/Dn44iD5F8tbN420dEdzVENdjh+WF1KBxSBNC/xYYOAoXzpLr/m4h9HJeeY5CVG/RAC 5RjjhfmeWRHAIZuFVAIF3Kdefu5LrVaZX3k+eNiGH49Nq+OFWs5rYFZTmWz2mmFPKcMy CjQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJpV54GfEIgKyOjGX0JqwbK55VSjfFPnhNKbZV69KiPhAdBKKBR tDLAKumu7lf9irqr4sOyriOJVsu+LdLjRDaYog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosX1EYgfc1+5icfLgKQg9aNSjTFW0NPT2vP8YvJABt9f7Cje6sKkRup8YeI5raVuP0TffGCF9r2hQDNdaUCXgk= X-Received: by 10.80.158.196 with SMTP id a62mr17895234edf.307.1514007587358; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:39:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:39:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 08:39:06 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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="===============2764589477558522614==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2764589477558522614== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19b9766e8d010560fb5c4b" --94eb2c19b9766e8d010560fb5c4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2017-12-23 1:51 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch : > > > On Dec 22, 2017, at 11:45 AM, selpahi wrote: > > > > The many reasons that lead to this state that Lojban is in simply leave > no other verdict than the one I expressed. > > I hear the rhetoric, {doi selpa=E2=80=99i be mi}, but my own reasons prec= lude me > from reaching that verdict. Given that I have spent little time on lojban > over the last couple of years, I would take no offense at being called "o= ut > of touch=E2=80=9D. Still, let=E2=80=99s suppose that the facts that have = accumulated over > that period are as awful as could be imagined: How much sense does it mak= e > to draw conclusions about the existential state of lojban given a sample > that represents such a small fraction of its lifetime? Wouldn=E2=80=99t t= hat be > something like what happens when there=E2=80=99s a cold snap mid-winter a= nd those > that assign scientific consensus to an indifferent place in the market of > ideas make jokes about climate change? > > Setting aside questions of scope =E2=80=94 lojbanists, I am told, almost = always > get those wrong =E2=80=94 I can=E2=80=99t reconcile the idea that lojban = gave up the ghost > with the fact that, even as plugged in as I am not, I=E2=80=99m aware of = new songs > and stories composed in lojban, the production of an hour-long animation, > and people in chat {na=E2=80=99e slabu be mi} conversing in uninterrupted= lojban. > Furthermore, I can now read CLL on my Kindle and there=E2=80=99s a lojban= ist at > Duolingo who just last year pushed out a prototype for statistical > translation from lojban. Yesterday or the day before, I saw that guskant = is > organizing another community art project, and today, I learned that if I > had an Android phone, I=E2=80=99d be able able to swipe-complete lojban. = All of > this in the last couple of years. Few conlang communities sustain that > level of activity, even if we could and should do better. (I agree, by th= e > way, that we can and should.) > > I understand that for those who are intensely involved on a day-to-day > basis, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to invest the energies that you do, and n= ot to find > others matching your contributions. On the other hand, if you zoom out an= d > look at the history of lojban, isn=E2=80=99t this the rule? Whether it=E2= =80=99s lojbab > trying to resuscitate Loglan after it had been dismantled by years of JCB= =E2=80=99s > =E2=80=9Cengineering interventions=E2=80=9D, or John Cowan taking it on h= imself to see that > the reference grammar got finished, or Robin persisting through years of > drudgery to make sure that we could update and re-publish it =E2=80=94 an= d so on. > Asymmetries of effort are the rule, not the exception. > > None of this is unique to lojbanistan as a volunteer-driven community, > although it might be aggravated by the relatively small size of the > community. When someone drops the ball, there are fewer people to pick it > back up. There may also be something of a vicious cycle =E2=80=94 again, = not unique > to lojban =E2=80=94 where it is difficult for those with only modest amou= nts of > time and attention to invest to keep pace with those who are burning the > midnight lamp to make up for the help that they=E2=80=99re not getting. > > I do not for a moment doubt that you have paid your dues, {doi selpa=E2= =80=99i}. > You are entitled to feel disappointed, disillusioned, frustrated. Nobody > could blame you for cutting your losses. I sincerely hope that you contin= ue > making more beautiful things with lojban and shining light into the dark > corners of the language, but you don=E2=80=99t owe that to me or anybody = else. > > As a wise fella once put it, LLG is not the "getting things done" arm of > the Lojban community. That said, we do have it as our mission to promote > the study of the relationships between language, thought and human cultur= e, > and to support the community of people learning artificially-engineered > natural language, etc. We haven=E2=80=99t exactly covered ourselves in gl= ory so > far, but if we=E2=80=99re going to improve, it=E2=80=99s going to take le= adership: That > continues to be a bigger problem than laziness or lethargy. A bigger > problem than language management, too. > > I, too, have misgivings about the way that the baseline has been handled > over the years. I spent the last month and a half studying Greek. When I > found out about Katharevousa, I couldn=E2=80=99t help but be reminded of = CLL lojban. > > With time, I=E2=80=99ve come to think of the baseline and the way it has = been > handled as over-learning. JCB=E2=80=99s tyranny over the prescription for= Loglan > gutted that community. Even he acknowledged that it brought loglan to a > =E2=80=9Cnear halt=E2=80=9D. The baseline was formulated, to some extent,= to ensure that > scenario didn=E2=80=99t repeat. It turns out that the challenges facing l= ojban have > been different, but it=E2=80=99s worth remembering that when JCB passed i= n 2000, > Alex Leith, who had assumed control of TLI some time before, wrote > admiringly of the stability provided by the baseline approach. I don=E2= =80=99t > think he was completely wrong. > > I continue to believe that there is much to be gained by continuing to > work with lojban, not only in spite of its imperfections, but because of > them. If it turns out that something can=E2=80=99t be fixed, either becau= se of > deep-seated commitments in the structure of the language, or because the > language community rejects the remedy, that=E2=80=99s something that lang= uages > which have yet to be specified can learn from. > > It may have once been true that it was impossible to resolve certain > problems because of the rigidity of the baseline and a disparity of > organizational representation between generations of lojbanists. I don=E2= =80=99t > think that reflects the current situation. We haven=E2=80=99t been fixing= things > that are within our power to fix. > > Why is it, for example, that nearly fifteen years after xorlo was approve= d > by BPFK, CLL continues to use {le} as the default gadri? Because BPFK has no rules to operate and therefore does not operate. And most likely hasn't ever. > If I had to guess, it=E2=80=99s less because of the grunt work involved t= o > implement the changes than the fact that although most people would agree= , > not everyone will. That=E2=80=99s where a lack of leadership holds us bac= k: Without > willingness to engage in the unglamorous business of building rough > consensus, the commons stagnate. It=E2=80=99s less work for individuals t= o > incorporate insights into their idiolects than to educate others and > institutionalize the learning. It=E2=80=99s easier to resign one=E2=80=99= s self to others=E2=80=99 > lack of initiative than to stick one=E2=80=99s neck out and risk personal= failure., > or even just ill-considered criticism. > > If a =E2=80=9Ctake no prisoners=E2=80=9D solution to lojban=E2=80=99s ill= =E2=80=99s includes > consensus-building and the kind of follow-up that will ensure the > availability of up-to-date reference and learning materials, let=E2=80=99= s talk > about what it would take to make that happen. But please take a moment to > think about what you=E2=80=99d be signing yourself up for, too. > > io sai > > =E2=80=94Riley > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --94eb2c19b9766e8d010560fb5c4b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2017-12-23 1:51 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com<= /a>>:

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 11:45 AM, selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
>
> The many reasons that lead to this state that Lojban is in simply leav= e no other verdict than the one I expressed.

I hear the rhetoric, {doi selpa=E2=80=99i be mi}, but my own reasons= preclude me from reaching that verdict. Given that I have spent little tim= e on lojban over the last couple of years, I would take no offense at being= called "out of touch=E2=80=9D. Still, let=E2=80=99s suppose that the = facts that have accumulated over that period are as awful as could be imagi= ned: How much sense does it make to draw conclusions about the existential = state of lojban given a sample that represents such a small fraction of its= lifetime? Wouldn=E2=80=99t that be something like what happens when there= =E2=80=99s a cold snap mid-winter and those that assign scientific consensu= s to an indifferent place in the market of ideas make jokes about climate c= hange?

Setting aside questions of scope =E2=80=94 lojbanists, I am told, almost al= ways get those wrong =E2=80=94 I can=E2=80=99t reconcile the idea that lojb= an gave up the ghost with the fact that, even as plugged in as I am not, I= =E2=80=99m aware of new songs and stories composed in lojban, the productio= n of an hour-long animation, and people in chat {na=E2=80=99e slabu be mi} = conversing in uninterrupted lojban. Furthermore, I can now read CLL on my K= indle and there=E2=80=99s a lojbanist at Duolingo who just last year pushed= out a prototype for statistical translation from lojban. Yesterday or the = day before, I saw that guskant is organizing another community art project,= and today, I learned that if I had an Android phone, I=E2=80=99d be able a= ble to swipe-complete lojban. All of this in the last couple of years. Few = conlang communities sustain that level of activity, even if we could and sh= ould do better. (I agree, by the way, that we can and should.)

I understand that for those who are intensely involved on a day-to-day basi= s, it=E2=80=99s frustrating to invest the energies that you do, and not to = find others matching your contributions. On the other hand, if you zoom out= and look at the history of lojban, isn=E2=80=99t this the rule? Whether it= =E2=80=99s lojbab trying to resuscitate Loglan after it had been dismantled= by years of JCB=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cengineering interventions=E2=80=9D, or = John Cowan taking it on himself to see that the reference grammar got finis= hed, or Robin persisting through years of drudgery to make sure that we cou= ld update and re-publish it =E2=80=94 and so on. Asymmetries of effort are = the rule, not the exception.

None of this is unique to lojbanistan as a volunteer-driven community, alth= ough it might be aggravated by the relatively small size of the community. = When someone drops the ball, there are fewer people to pick it back up. The= re may also be something of a vicious cycle =E2=80=94 again, not unique to = lojban =E2=80=94 where it is difficult for those with only modest amounts o= f time and attention to invest to keep pace with those who are burning the = midnight lamp to make up for the help that they=E2=80=99re not getting.

I do not for a moment doubt that you have paid your dues, {doi selpa=E2=80= =99i}. You are entitled to feel disappointed, disillusioned, frustrated. No= body could blame you for cutting your losses. I sincerely hope that you con= tinue making more beautiful things with lojban and shining light into the d= ark corners of the language, but you don=E2=80=99t owe that to me or anybod= y else.

As a wise fella once put it, LLG is not the "getting things done"= arm of the Lojban community. That said, we do have it as our mission to pr= omote the study of the relationships between language, thought and human cu= lture, and to support the community of people learning artificially-enginee= red natural language, etc. We haven=E2=80=99t exactly covered ourselves in = glory so far, but if we=E2=80=99re going to improve, it=E2=80=99s going to = take leadership: That continues to be a bigger problem than laziness or let= hargy. A bigger problem than language management, too.

I, too, have misgivings about the way that the baseline has been handled ov= er the years. I spent the last month and a half studying Greek. When I foun= d out about Katharevousa, I couldn=E2=80=99t help but be reminded of CLL lo= jban.

With time, I=E2=80=99ve come to think of the baseline and the way it has be= en handled as over-learning. JCB=E2=80=99s tyranny over the prescription fo= r Loglan gutted that community. Even he acknowledged that it brought loglan= to a =E2=80=9Cnear halt=E2=80=9D. The baseline was formulated, to some ext= ent, to ensure that scenario didn=E2=80=99t repeat. It turns out that the c= hallenges facing lojban have been different, but it=E2=80=99s worth remembe= ring that when JCB passed in 2000, Alex Leith, who had assumed control of T= LI some time before, wrote admiringly of the stability provided by the base= line approach. I don=E2=80=99t think he was completely wrong.

I continue to believe that there is much to be gained by continuing to work= with lojban, not only in spite of its imperfections, but because of them. = If it turns out that something can=E2=80=99t be fixed, either because of de= ep-seated commitments in the structure of the language, or because the lang= uage community rejects the remedy, that=E2=80=99s something that languages = which have yet to be specified can learn from.

It may have once been true that it was impossible to resolve certain proble= ms because of the rigidity of the baseline and a disparity of organizationa= l representation between generations of lojbanists. I don=E2=80=99t think t= hat reflects the current situation. We haven=E2=80=99t been fixing things t= hat are within our power to fix.

Why is it, for example, that nearly fifteen years after xorlo was approved = by BPFK, CLL continues to use {le} as the default gadri?
<= br>

Because BPFK has no rules to operate and there= fore does not operate. And most likely hasn't ever.

=C2=A0
If I had to guess, it=E2= =80=99s less because of the grunt work involved to implement the changes th= an the fact that although most people would agree, not everyone will. That= =E2=80=99s where a lack of leadership holds us back: Without willingness to= engage in the unglamorous business of building rough consensus, the common= s stagnate. It=E2=80=99s less work for individuals to incorporate insights = into their idiolects than to educate others and institutionalize the learni= ng. It=E2=80=99s easier to resign one=E2=80=99s self to others=E2=80=99 lac= k of initiative than to stick one=E2=80=99s neck out and risk personal fail= ure., or even just ill-considered criticism.

If a =E2=80=9Ctake no prisoners=E2=80=9D solution to lojban=E2=80=99s ill= =E2=80=99s includes consensus-building and the kind of follow-up that will = ensure the availability of up-to-date reference and learning materials, let= =E2=80=99s talk about what it would take to make that happen. But please ta= ke a moment to think about what you=E2=80=99d be signing yourself up for, t= oo.

io sai

=E2=80=94Riley


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

--94eb2c19b9766e8d010560fb5c4b-- --===============2764589477558522614== 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 --===============2764589477558522614==--