Received: from localhost ([::1]:33924 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVXrg-0006zN-Al; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:17:00 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:43820) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVXr3-0006wH-R9 for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:16:28 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n25so10562216ywh.10 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:16:19 -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=UuumypXcLwns+s1feLeO8rUkCxe7BaUbOt8vZQSCncA=; b=adySF67wknY13C7pOhktwS9JVsOoBddNh6NcN6jJvUL+X3e0RjmSdOqnHuXTITygKX 21QvKvgAFs6VtokwMkafEmnBnXE57hHPG58C1x/JvzRqobpsdpGn8C9n2teMjUyspWon bJ4BFxaIwsRrtUReCzXiCGUeRFSqMsHuqkepauQJy5TsGk2FCcz7yytP0pFURI9PlCVP CPZUXxEp9bkk++efPDH2H6Yw+Jl8Anp4+4/ymKRphrp7mycXWglLHiOrnD1uwFCGtMOa jyimJ+BmhH4I218bWtzSvCyp2HpByBbToYJHRzCK26h+nwedSppalXJsk5nYEMtp0ySM d3jQ== 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=UuumypXcLwns+s1feLeO8rUkCxe7BaUbOt8vZQSCncA=; b=DCH1r+gUDK55iiFWfQms+0YvuM/PQViBiFB+1yr0+Gwe3sChREdHdhMOtIlQGgvP8D In6L6srpOVqVFlu340UY7TSQBiXc+NTN1XhJ17NLjsM5AiaTmHRpJpoXpjH8CzfxEo6P aciKuccRapdUDcqEuT7Um2xpzv4m/avdicJ551IYKDquz6J1j1N0xT0/hIWUY5c+kTLO ZBAqfWQDIkhe2encLJKyF199nsOdGH5NGqs9AaxCTO+nQIcfNG6XqopVVN8q1YMcFgA6 CTcqS6z1WsGT21jVD2FgkaEy7BjvE7RZBcH2TkKaJKJu8+EstKDdMTWqWgqk0Ohur6pA F1cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLrBoUeuWJhoZInxIbAYsFt6ahqSlJWgqN8dmYkjnsiyrR2RAmi 2m/rfuCZqDgE2Z4d58DCV5GoonrXOvRZcNNEW5M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouwGprnpShR/7fjbZ0bclzufQWkOA+FxMUpjTIdWlysWP4We2fyYJqEFgLI1roswRpZN2LSq9d5KX9S25oWghM= X-Received: by 10.129.175.72 with SMTP id x8mr26951370ywj.277.1514704571988; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:16:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:15:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: Curtis Franks Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 02:15:31 -0500 Message-ID: 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] 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="===============6694521961668189701==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6694521961668189701== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f2928f400d505619da366" --f403045f2928f400d505619da366 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Actually, I amend my first motion (which means that the results will trickle down to the others) such that the description of what constitutes a logical language includes languages with the properties so described, but such that they are not necessarily limited to such languages. On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > 2017-12-31 9:34 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > >> They have not yet been seconded. >> >> The LLG would still be able to direct its efforts according to the will >> of its members. If Logical English is of intense, consuming interest to >> them, then maybe they should be allowed to focus on and support such >> endeavors while ignoring everything else. And if only Lojban interests >> them, then they will continue doing approximately what they are doing now >> (although they may incur cost wrt the first motion). The choice of how to >> allocate their resources and drives would remain entirely theirs. Some >> subset of these options are already true of the de facto history of the LLG >> (in which case such motions are just acting as clarification) and some >> subset of these options is already hinted at in the bylaws and de juris >> design of the LLG (in which case, we would just be recommitting to those >> principles). None of these are really obligations; they are more of mission >> statements and aspirational policy. >> >> Also, as these are entirely separate motions, you can second or vote in >> favor of some subset of them. For example and in particular, perhaps >> reconsider your abstention wrt the second motion. They do not exclude any >> other goals, even if those goals were raised in some of these motions but >> those motions fail to pass right now. There is some danger in picking only >> one of these motions though, unless we accept that there can be implicit >> primary or actionable secondary goals; we would not want to explicitly >> devote ourselves to one purpose in a manner exclusive of the others if we >> do in fact want the others but did not pass their motions here. >> >> We should also consider the fact that this policy would exist for >> arbitrarily long duration. If we adopt the second motion only but then >> decide tomorrow that Lojban is not cool and that there is something better, >> we would then have to change our policy or we would fail our goals upon de >> facto dropping Lojban from our collective interest. >> >> Without these, we risk being aimless. With them, we risk being bound in >> undesirable ways. But in some ways, we already are either fulfilling these >> motions or failing them (and possibly our bylaws) regardless of whether >> they are official policy. >> > > Your motion deals with actual work, which LLG hasn't been doing for years > (at least not in my epoch). I'm under the same paralysis as others. > On the other hand BPFK being in action ultimately led to recurring > criticism of its decisions by non-members of BPFK. > And on the gripping hand ({ma'i lo cimoi}, probably not {zu'ucu'i}) what > does it even mean to support other spoken logical languages when there is > almost zero interest in them in non-Lojbanists? > Xorban community faded out in several months, Ithkuil could count as a > logical language but not accroding to this motion. > > 1. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places where spoken > logical languages are discussed by non-Lojbanists? > 2. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places where > knowledge representation languages like RDF are discussed? > > > >> >> On Dec 31, 2017 00:45, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2017-12-30 19:19 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : >> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 30, 2017 07:44, "And Rosta" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 30 Dec 2017 03:46, "Curtis Franks" wrote: >>> >>> Okay, maybe we should take on both projects (exploration and promotion >>> of logical language in general and also, separately, the exploration and >>> promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical language)). We >>> might also want to create or establish a framework for the creation of a >>> Lojban derivative which is a logical language by all previously mentioned >>> standards. >>> >>> How do we do this? What proposals or orientations are actionable? >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd suggest three motions determining the principal aims of the LLG. >>> >>> Motion 1. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal >>> goals) is exploration and promotion of logical language in general. >>> >>> >>> I move: >>> The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any >>> other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of >>> logical language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional >>> framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. >>> linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument >>> structure (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) >>> is one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an >>> unlimited number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' >>> property. The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both from PAS to >>> phonological form and from phonological form to PAS.) >>> >>> >>> Motion 2. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal >>> goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical >>> language) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG. >>> >>> >>> I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my >>> immediately previous motion in this message. >>> >>> >>> Motion 3. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal >>> goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a logical language. >>> >>> >>> I likewise so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous >>> two motions in this message. >>> >>> >>> For extra clarity, add in to each motion the definition of logical >>> language that I gave earlier. >>> >>> If Motion 1 were to pass, then I'd have some modest concrete suggestions >>> for what LLG could do (and I would apply to rejoin LLG). If Motion 3 were >>> to pass then I'd probably have some constructive contributions to make to >>> the ensuing discussion. >>> >>> >> >> I abstain from voting on that since I don't have enough information on >> possible consequences of such new policy. >> >> There are many projects that convert logical notation to English, and I >> know a few projects that convert English to logical notation. I'm not sure >> what supporting subsets of English (like Aviation English?) could mean to >> LLG. >> >> >>> --And. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2017 10:30, "And Rosta" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: >>>> > The bylaws were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of >>>> research into logical languages, and there has always been the possibility >>>> of conducting or supporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has >>>> been interested in such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and >>>> studying the use of Lojban. >>>> >>>> That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac. >>>> >>>> I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to >>>> explore logical language, as opposed to the mission to promote Lojban. As a >>>> member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventually changed my position, >>>> but this was because it became increasingly evident to me that the two >>>> goals (of exploring and promoting logical language, versus promoting >>>> Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban community, a >>>> victory for the one goal can be achieved only through the defeat of the >>>> other; but success in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved only >>>> within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of >>>> promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters of >>>> Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life's >>>> work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's life's work >>>> should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban community >>>> should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and therefore >>>> must not be required to promote logical language). >>>> >>>> > Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "logical languages", >>>> which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and never have been - >>>> languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly >>>> "invent" with the complete full documentation needed for new people to >>>> learn and use them. So I hope selpa'i will forgive me if I don't look at >>>> his own efforts at a new "logical language". >>>> >>>> This is all true, except that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a >>>> logical language, for all that it might falsely advertise itself as such. >>>> >>>> The antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue >>>> users and promotes itself by falsely claiming to be a logical language. Any >>>> logical language is therefore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim >>>> to be a logical language, coupled with its comparative fame, is an obstacle >>>> to -- a distraction from -- the promotion of logical language. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but >>>> until then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote >>>> the purposes described in the Bylaws. >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, patent bullshit. >>>> >>>> >>>> While I would be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes >>>> described in the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its >>>> baselined and current forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban >>>> community rather than from the logical language community, it is obviously >>>> and not unreasonably the case that the large majority of LLG members >>>> prioritize the promotion of Lojban over the promotion of the purposes >>>> described in the Bylaws. >>>> >>>> --And. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --f403045f2928f400d505619da366 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually, I amend my first motion (which means that the resu= lts will trickle down to the others) such that the description of what cons= titutes a logical language includes languages with the properties so descri= bed, but such that they are not necessarily limited to such languages.

On Sun, De= c 31, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com= > wrote:
<= br>

2017-12-31 9:34 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.= com>:
They have not yet been seconded.

The LLG would still be able to direct its efforts accord= ing to the will of its members. If Logical English is of intense, consuming= interest to them, then maybe they should be allowed to focus on and suppor= t such endeavors while ignoring everything else. And if only Lojban interes= ts them, then they will continue doing approximately what they are doing no= w (although they may incur cost wrt the first motion). The choice of how to= allocate their resources and drives would remain entirely theirs. Some sub= set of these options are already true of the de facto history of the LLG (i= n which case such motions are just acting as clarification) and some subset= of these options is already hinted at in the bylaws and de juris design of= the LLG (in which case, we would just be recommitting to those principles)= . None of these are really obligations; they are more of mission statements= and aspirational policy.

Also, as these are entirely separate motions, you can second or vote in f= avor of some subset of them. For example and in particular, perhaps reconsi= der your abstention wrt the second motion. They do not exclude any other go= als, even if those goals were raised in some of these motions but those mot= ions fail to pass right now. There is some danger in picking only one of th= ese motions though, unless we accept that there can be implicit primary or = actionable secondary goals; we would not want to explicitly devote ourselve= s to one purpose in a manner exclusive of the others if we do in fact want = the others but did not pass their motions here.

=
We should also consider the fact that this policy w= ould exist for arbitrarily long duration. If we adopt the second motion onl= y but then decide tomorrow that Lojban is not cool and that there is someth= ing better, we would then have to change our policy or we would fail our go= als upon de facto dropping Lojban from our collective interest.

Without these, we risk being aimles= s. With them, we risk being bound in undesirable ways. But in some ways, we= already are either fulfilling these motions or failing them (and possibly = our bylaws) regardless of whether they are official policy.

Your motion deals with actual work, whi= ch LLG hasn't been doing for years (at least not in my epoch). I'm = under the same paralysis as others.
On the other hand BPFK being = in action ultimately led to recurring criticism of its decisions by non-mem= bers of BPFK.=C2=A0
And on the gripping hand ({ma'i lo cimoi}= , probably not {zu'ucu'i}) what does it even mean to support other = spoken logical languages when there is almost zero interest in them in non-= Lojbanists?
Xorban community faded out in several months, Ithkuil= could count as a logical language but not accroding to this motion.
<= div>
1. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good pl= aces where spoken logical languages are discussed by non-Lojbanists?
<= div>2. Does anyone happen to know any communities or good places where know= ledge representation languages like RDF are discussed?




On Dec 31, 2017 00:45, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.co= m> wrote:


2017-12-3= 0 19:19 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>= :


On Dec 30, 2017 07:44, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


On 30 Dec 2017 03:46,= "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, maybe we should take on both projects= (exploration and promotion of logical language in general and also, separa= tely, the exploration and promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as = a logical language)). We might also want to create or establish a framework= for the creation of a Lojban derivative which is a logical language by all= previously mentioned standards.

How do we do this? What proposals or orientations are actionable?
<= /div>


I'd suggest three motions dete= rmining the principal aims of the LLG.

Motion 1. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any othe= r principal goals) is exploration and promotion of logical language in gene= ral.

=
I move:
The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with a= ny other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of lo= gical language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional framewo= rk and description:=C2=A0Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expr= essible) can be represented as a predicate-argument structure (PAS), a logi= cal language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that (syntactica= lly-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (Al= so known by some as the 'monoparsing' property. The relevant bidire= ctionality is conversion both from PAS to phonological form and from phonol= ogical form to PAS.)

Motion 2.=C2=A0A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is= promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical language) as de= fined by documents endorsed by the LLG.

I likewi= se (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my immediately previo= us motion in this message.


Motion 3.=C2=A0A principal goal of the LLG (coequal wit= h any other principal goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a l= ogical language.=C2=A0

I likewise so move, with terms as described in my immediately= previous two motions in this message.


For extra clarity, add in to each motion the definitio= n of logical language that I gave earlier.=C2=A0

If Motion 1 were to pass, then I'd have some modest con= crete suggestions for what LLG could do (and I would apply to rejoin LLG). = If Motion 3 were to pass then I'd probably have some constructive contr= ibutions to make to the ensuing discussion.
=


I abstain from voting on that since I don't have enough = information on possible consequences of such new policy.

There are many projects that convert logical notation to English, an= d I know a few projects that convert English to logical notation. I'm n= ot sure what supporting subsets of English (like Aviation English?) could m= ean to LLG.


--And.




On = Dec 29, 2017 10:30, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
<= br>

O= n 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> The bylaws were formulated to broa= dly cover a variety of forms of research into logical languages, and there = has always been the possibility of conducting or supporting such research. = But to put it simply, no one has been interested in such research EXCEPT in= the form of promoting and studying the use of Lojban.

= That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac.

I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to = explore logical language, as opposed to the mission to promote Lojban. As a= member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventually changed my position, b= ut this was because it became increasingly evident to me that the two goals= (of exploring and promoting logical language, versus promoting Lojban) are= in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban community, a victory for t= he one goal can be achieved only through the defeat of the other; but succe= ss in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved only within LLG and the = Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of promoting logical language= can be achieved outside it; many promoters of Lojban (as opposed to logica= l language) have invested much of their life's work in the enterprise, = and pursuing the failure of another's life's work should be avoided= where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban community should be left to p= romote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and therefore must not be required = to promote logical language).
=
>=C2=A0 Indeed, there = is a strong antipathy to other "logical languages", which I admit= to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and never have been - languages= are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly "inv= ent" with the complete full documentation needed for new people to lea= rn and use them.=C2=A0 So I hope selpa'i will forgive me if I don't= look at his own efforts at a new "logical language".

This is all true, except that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is = not a logical language, for all that it might falsely advertise itself as s= uch.=C2=A0

The antipathy Lojbab describes exists becaus= e Lojban seeks to accrue users and promotes itself by falsely claiming to b= e a logical language. Any logical language is therefore a rival to Lojban. = And Lojban's false claim to be a logical language, coupled with its com= parative fame, is an obstacle to -- a distraction from -- the promotion of = logical language.




So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but unti= l then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote the pu= rposes described in the Bylaws.

Again, patent bullshit.=C2=A0


While I w= ould be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes described in= the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its baselined and curr= ent forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban community rather than fr= om the logical language community, it is obviously and not unreasonably the= case that the large majority of LLG members prioritize the promotion of Lo= jban over the promotion of the purposes described in the Bylaws.=C2=A0

--And.

__= _____________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


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



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



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



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



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.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


--f403045f2928f400d505619da366-- --===============6694521961668189701== 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 --===============6694521961668189701==--