Received: from localhost ([::1]:52150 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVhuQ-0008WP-GG; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:00:30 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.161.171]:42428) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eVhtr-0008UF-8u for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:59:58 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z132so8136448ywd.9 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:59:52 -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=aY9oqQCsN8O406TjrEfwDKGC4higygExxPX/dnMcZLo=; b=f8ME2dFu/3hHvJAg+zwwHeHwsDCRce1e0I29s58es7JQGn6ZH/A/z3hkbAhsz2T2Qg QTGq7TZIm2WAWq/AvD/SMgxFpngXAsHzxkR22ZFF1S08h6aNweO6wT7LpeFevOrg5ume 7/ezJeUiT13lQCSVh99dwSjQr/JexL4d/ecVens8e67tLd1DqgutIgZmbzjxmFBQmmQy U/HE2J/48CteaZW9VP2Q+HVnTk8qA10X5ozZlufMV0x2hV3u4CX+kiJcm4qwMOtQogqB xO2qUHG8kL3qjiJghJ0oTZ0QpGAJBwUOd11iYlbLWcKRWUv5m0AgAY+/2kyCNZhWS32S zQbA== 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=aY9oqQCsN8O406TjrEfwDKGC4higygExxPX/dnMcZLo=; b=Yf+aeItXIfBMWIPoAx2JlicX8pwW9sv98jZl/U4HNYOE8mg6wRVv6fxjYOWDQscHib l9odTdC47ro80wHnqcor6z69s4hHmROOjmxgT8Z6KdsF7/Ii57io59rZlf30c4FIwMGS 2kiMWowpGfpO5CoE5+YapMzgDdNp5TPpDCtAEqt3EGv/IB5z2fNJ4lodq9Ay/xKjZtB7 D2aiROuB1daw+jk+E9lWtaNygN2x3ZARtqHyNbDyQI0uBKw/R1/aBmQpHMuzJhaqD5iy V62c+S4qMJ30uzuKved07P+0ZDVI4QsWkPBxunPch1sPW8ynz3yRFdh1RciffGY5mcjx Qlkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKlBaVjui+K32CDWtPcaZJ9omV/nuWZ8+8PDnGUjewzMezhGFo8 WZEHrThKPDQRI467plhMmBuVGNArnwGxksqoJ/o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovey+J7qBqFSLguCYG6yeWIXM19pP2oOysHFq8X5Zzy8SAszjoEyOq6XUCvzdf7G3NtUVdx+HMN5d1J5aaB+d8= X-Received: by 10.129.141.7 with SMTP id d7mr28923195ywg.70.1514743184432; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:59:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:59:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> <0bd3827c-a523-3356-8107-d30854d9d466@selpahi.de> From: Curtis Franks Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:59:43 -0500 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="===============3251843036374503851==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3251843036374503851== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e5fe66f236e0561a6a1c5" --f403045e5fe66f236e0561a6a1c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Dec 31, 2017 12:03, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" wrote: Regarding Curtis=E2=80=99 motions, particularly the second, I=E2=80=99d lik= e to note that the bylaws that were quoted earlier in the meeting as not mentioning =E2=80=9Clojban=E2=80=9D are the bylaws as they existed prior to the amendm= ents which were made in 2003 which added this language: In the furtherance of its purposes as stated above, The Logical Language Group, Inc. shall place priority on support of the community of persons learning, using, experimenting with, and promoting the language known as "Lojban - A Realization of Loglan" or alternatively "Lojban=E2=80=9D. I regard this reference to Lojban to be fairly narrow. It does not necessarily cover my first or third motions in their general application (or, according to some opinions, perhaps at all). It might be deemed to cover my second motion. The amendments were not =E2=80=9Censcrolled" until many years later, which = may be responsible for any confusion on this point. I consider the current text of article 2 section 1 to be broad enough, for better or worse, to include investigation, implementation, experimentation, and support of any "artificially-engineered natural language=E2=80=9D. I agree. I am not sure how that relates to any of these motions though. Can you explain? (Serious question) I=E2=80=99m inclined to support narrowing that mission to emphasize =E2=80= =9Clogical=E2=80=9D languages, as implied in our name, but I think we ought to be careful about the language that we use to define such a thing. Part of the problem space includes defining the problem, That is why I prefer my amended first motion. It defines a class of languages/language properties which we would support, but not to the exclusion of others which may still be considered to be "logical" by someone. I understand that the definition of "loglang" is fairly fundamental, natural, and elementary. I am sure that there are good arguments for why it should be considered the only proper definition for anything which is to deemed to be a logical language. But I am not sure that we should de juris commit ourselves to an outcome in that debate, particularly before it is conducted. Instead, we say that the set of logical languages includes those which accord with the specifications given, and then we debate as community whether there is any logical language which does not accord with those specifications; it can be a fairly informal discussion. In any case, with the amended version of the motion (but not the original version), it can be had later. Maybe we should consider including language which specifies that the languages are to be constructed if they are to qualify as loglangs or 'logical languages'. But I do not actually agree with that requirement. so there=E2=80=99s a risk that whatever additional commitments we might tak= e on could become a liability down the road. I would prefer that we avoid commitments that might be interpreted to constrain the design decisions or implementation details of such a language. That includes specifying a =E2=80=9Clojban derivative=E2=80=9D. I agree with all of this. That said, I applaud and stand ready to support any effort to document and use any language that we recognize as aligned with the goals of logical language, with or without an amendment or resolution, and I think the bylaws justify that position. Mostly agreed. And (whom I hope I understand is retracting the resignation he submitted a couple of months back!) imagined a world where "xorxes and selpa'i had been given carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement=E2=80=9D. I would like [to] challenge the idea that this organiza= tion is exercising any material prior restraint that would prevent such a thing from happening. Agreed. If John Cowan had not produced a work that aligned with the goals of this organization, it wouldn=E2=80=99t have received the support that it has. Li= kewise if xorxes and selpa=E2=80=99i were to collaborate on a new reference gramma= r, whether it be called =E2=80=9CCLL 2.0=E2=80=9D or anything else, I think we= =E2=80=99d be well within our rights and duties to consider how we wanted to support that work and describe it in relationship to our mission. Agreed. And to consider how it interacts with Lojban (or specific versions thereof). On Dec 31, 2017, at 10:25 AM, selpahi wrote: Curtis moved the following: 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.) Seconded. 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. Seconded. 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. Seconded. My second does not include Curtis' amendment, because I consider the definition of loglanghood given by And adequate as is. A language that does not fulfill those (fundamental) requirements is not a logical language ("loglang"). ~~~mi'e la selpa'i --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 --f403045e5fe66f236e0561a6a1c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Dec 31, 2017 12:03, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" &= lt;shunpiker@gmail= .com> wrote:
Regarding Curtis= =E2=80=99 motions, particularly the second, I=E2=80=99d like to note that t= he bylaws that were quoted earlier in the meeting as not mentioning =E2=80= =9Clojban=E2=80=9D are the bylaws as they existed prior to the amendments w= hich were made in 2003 which added this language:

In the furtherance of its purposes as stated above, The Logica= l Language Group, Inc. shall place priority on support of the community of = persons learning, using, experimenting with, and promoting the language kno= wn as "Lojban - A Realization of Loglan" or alternatively "L= ojban=E2=80=9D.

I regard this reference to Lojba= n to be fairly narrow. It does not necessarily cover my first or third moti= ons in their general application (or, according to some opinions, perhaps a= t all).

It might be deem= ed to cover my second motion.


The amendments were not=C2=A0= =E2=80=9Censcrolled" until many years later, which may be responsible = for any confusion on this point.

I consider the current text of article 2 section 1 to be broad enough,= for better or worse, to include investigation, implementation, experimenta= tion, and support of any "artificially-engineered natural langu= age=E2=80=9D.

I agree. I am not sure how that relates to any of thes= e motions though. Can you explain? (Serious question)

I=E2=80=99m inclined to support narrowing that mission to= emphasize =E2=80=9Clogical=E2=80=9D languages, as implied in our name, but= I think we ought to be careful about the language that we use to define su= ch a thing. Part of the problem space includes defining the problem,
<= /div>

That is why I prefer my amended first motion. It defines a class of langua= ges/language properties which we would support, but not to the exclusion of= others which may still be considered to be "logical" by someone.=

I understand that the d= efinition of "loglang" is fairly fundamental, natural, and elemen= tary. I am sure that there are good arguments for why it should be consider= ed the only proper definition for anything which is to deemed to be a logic= al language. But I am not sure that we should de juris commit ourselves to = an outcome in that debate, particularly before it is conducted. Instead, we= say that the set of logical languages includes those which accord with the= specifications given, and then we debate as community whether there is any= logical language which does not accord with those specifications; it can b= e a fairly informal discussion. In any case, with the amended version of th= e motion (but not the original version), it can be had later.

Maybe we should consider including la= nguage which specifies that the languages are to be constructed if they are= to qualify as loglangs or 'logical languages'. But I do not actual= ly agree with that requirement.

so there=E2=80=99s a risk that whatever additional= commitments we might take on could become a liability down the road. I wou= ld prefer that we avoid commitments that might be interpreted to constrain = the design decisions or implementation details of such a language. That inc= ludes specifying a =E2=80=9Clojban derivative=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0

I agre= e with all of this.


That said, I applau= d and stand ready to support any effort to document and use any language th= at we recognize as aligned with the goals of logical language, with or with= out an amendment or resolution, and I think the bylaws justify that positio= n.

Mostly agreed.

And (whom I hop= e I understand is retracting the resignation he submitted a couple of month= s back!) imagined a world where "xorxes and selpa'i had been given= carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement=E2=80= =9D. I would like [to] challenge the idea that this organization is exercis= ing any material prior restraint that would prevent such a thing from happe= ning.

Agreed.

If John Cowan had not produced a work that aligned with the g= oals of this organization, it wouldn=E2=80=99t have received the support th= at it has. Likewise if xorxes and selpa=E2=80=99i were to collaborate on a = new reference grammar, whether it be called =E2=80=9CCLL 2.0=E2=80=9D or an= ything else, I think we=E2=80=99d be well within our rights and duties to c= onsider how we wanted to support that work and describe it in relationship = to our mission.
<= br>
Agreed. And to consider how it interacts with Lo= jban (or specific versions thereof).=C2=A0


On Dec 31, 2017, at 10:25 AM, selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote= :

Curtis moved the following:
I move:
The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (c= oequal with any other principal goals), the intention of exploration and pr= omotion of logical language(s) in general, subject to the following definit= ional framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e.= linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument str= ucture (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.)

Seconded.
<= br>
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Motion 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 en= dorsed by the LLG.
I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as desc= ribed in my immediately previous motion in this message.
Seconded.

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Motion 3. A= principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is crea= tion 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 mes= sage.

Seconded.

My second does not include Curti= s' amendment, because I consider the definition of loglanghood given by= And adequate as is. A language that does not fulfill those (fundamental) r= equirements is not a logical language ("loglang").

~~~mi&#= 39;e la selpa'i

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-So= ftware auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


__= _____________________________________________
Llg-members mailing l= ist
Llg-memb= ers@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/l= lg-members


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


--f403045e5fe66f236e0561a6a1c5-- --===============3251843036374503851== 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 --===============3251843036374503851==--