Received: from localhost ([::1]:48648 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZFf0-0002EF-Hb; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:39:14 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:45837) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZFeS-0002Ca-Ng for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:38:43 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id i186so10242795wmi.4 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:38:40 -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=6Wf/IKrXjjAxTIYaiIS7qDKCGdsEstw1hyO6n/64uhs=; b=I8GJHI3NgMWwcIXStr5fGQVYixvNwM1OdVtPR1PZ/fS3+1IdlVc3LKZU5c5bxsP++h YPEetx5wTHM1Wljcri8N7dL6aOQsjfMEUe/tTKQZjfj6PIXkTjspDaSx8Ea09kWbenBe aKqkGS3CFy1h8nQ21hfeirm0RC5Z3YmNZUxPiAuvO6uaH0Zd7cbuITeXVD6FFOxgXu8Q Y+QqnWUmGzPybouG76/lMWDqulY4FwhbS2JnDVSUPPF+xNIRbT0V84FUa+LclNolHnHQ 2YHX087kYIiXb0IMD9Roil715wPkOBL7pQIvZZCSQVKeu0RxnfivtjnmohPtCoWJiWDy hrgQ== 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=6Wf/IKrXjjAxTIYaiIS7qDKCGdsEstw1hyO6n/64uhs=; b=eVllNWaQgH8IMy86H5WIKNQ42UgF7CdtBLUIKCUuPe4PUXh+LeyDgryMocnJp8D8Y7 WawoncCKnYaLCgyXTwuhEyaRu+Al1L9QgEn7bRVCcdoccV4EAksc2oppLjO45ecja1hv XOe1+/3ejIXRBVBBWaPTr77oppFUhCV/e9x7PHqsAGb5t+7FHjr1Klwa6kbJRdk75Pp7 ZKH65awCwAaH4qZ1yexnRt81AT2hKpI00RIe9DQ0slEpWS1pGfcmb1t4+ca2trxA5aH7 /JFSP96jr+GUnGdaMvid2sn/G9CUX+CmEklYmytagN2w2C9khVj59eKH56Orn1wLEaC/ dtzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf3TEAjhtWZsTdSJcbQ+1ssEhd4TDM4OpSIADR/Xud8092UANTJ MQUyt2tMONg4qcxpPIY1N5Il3e7i2ui6VJCFiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouyEcmJWfFJLAnzNWj9pWRHhavR9XOfIACvfC73v9GQMQMs9/ZH+9rHXFZQknuRRkd3DB/ybQen0iDuhYSRoHc= X-Received: by 10.80.142.216 with SMTP id x24mr883413edx.307.1515587913600; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:38:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 04:37:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> <2f305760-8dd9-79f4-2951-f7bf7d357616@selpahi.de> <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:37:52 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.5 X-Spam_score_int: -4 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="===============5010741855103514221==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5010741855103514221== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0dfe4a3752be05626b4f8a" --94eb2c0dfe4a3752be05626b4f8a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2018-01-10 15:07 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > Thanks for the links. I knew the newer version was fairly easy to find > online, though we all now have the links right in front of us. > Most new internal contradictions that I can see come from adding a dictionary at the end of Robin's CLL. They were added automatically by importing from jbovlaste.lojban.org and require manual comparison of definitions to explanations in the older part of CLL. The older part itself in certain places was patched such that new contradictions were introduced (most likely in an attempt to fix other contradictions) but those are few in number. > .karis. > > On Jan 10, 2018 00:54, "Gleki Arxokuna" > wrote: > >> >> >> 2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services = : >> >>> Is Cowen's edition available online? >>> >> >> >> Probably here https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince/orig but >> better to scan it to be absolutely sure. >> >> >> >>> For me the issue will be accessing the newer version >>> >> >> >> it's sold in paper form. It's available online. >> >> https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Complete_Lojban_Language >> >> >>> since the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the >>> issue is the opposite. >>> >>> In any case we are faced first with questions of how we want the LLG to >>> function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the path includes a more >>> gradients lojban then we can discuss what standard we will use as a bas= e. >>> >>> .karis. >>> >>> On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services >>> >: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It seems there are several long time participants who seek >>>>> backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and b= ased >>>>> on CLL. >>>>> But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since >>>>> BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone >>>>> propose an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban. >>>>> >>>>> E.g. >>>>> 1. confirm that CLL is the basement >>>>> 2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in >>>>> Robin's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL >>>>> 3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL >>>>> 4. confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of >>>>> whether Robin's edition changes are deterioration or not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it first. >>>> Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically >>>> without further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce= lots >>>> of new internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL an= d >>>> "Robin's" ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> .karis. >>>>> >>>>> 2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services < >>>>> comcaresvcs@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and som= e >>>>>> of the material to which these comments were made. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a fe= w >>>>>> years ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, >>>>>> there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already publi= shed in >>>>>> the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the identica= l free >>>>>> documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK docum= ents, I >>>>>> have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and p= laced >>>>>> on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have acco= unt to >>>>>> edit the pages. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's >>>>>> problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and aga= in to >>>>>> let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. >>>>>> Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now n= ot much >>>>>> further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those sa= me >>>>>> people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. I= t was >>>>>> all a waste of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involved >>>>>> with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We hav= en't >>>>>> abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original >>>>>> publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members = ' and >>>>>> Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and ef= forts >>>>>> to fix them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of >>>>>> people learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any flue= ncy. >>>>>> The baseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question,= "Will >>>>>> lojban be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth lear= ning. >>>>>> Whether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they di= d, a >>>>>> shorter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanista= n. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor >>>>>> clarifications and improvements to explanations). >>>>>> Some people want Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes= , >>>>>> make the language more logical, fix issues, etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is >>>>>> established to promote the scientific study of the relationships bet= ween >>>>>> language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of la= nguage >>>>>> and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered nat= ural >>>>>> language; to implement and experiment with such a language... >>>>>> >>>>>> Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing >>>>>> the LLG's purpose. >>>>>> Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and >>>>>> experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose. >>>>>> Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial >>>>>> improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose. >>>>>> But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot tak= e >>>>>> both. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language >>>>>> necessarily want to prevent significant change all together, but wan= t >>>>>> change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a fe= w >>>>>> people think their new way is the way everyone should now speak. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and >>>>>> hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take. >>>>>> This is causing frustration: people wanting development, trying to >>>>>> implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and fee= l like >>>>>> they're wasting their time. >>>>>> This is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their >>>>>> work using the language will be invalidated by changes to the langua= ge in >>>>>> the future. >>>>>> This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their >>>>>> preferred direction. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> True. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this >>>>>> conflict. >>>>>> This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, >>>>>> and unmotivated. This conflict also make beginners confused and >>>>>> discouraged. >>>>>> This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community= . >>>>>> Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems >>>>>> threaten the LLG too. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the path forward is: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG. >>>>>> - Do all LLG members have the same understanding? >>>>>> - Do all LLG members agree with them? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban >>>>>> fits into the LLG goals. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development >>>>>> elsewhere) or continuously developed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard from anyone and I think >>>>>> you're describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant w= ays. >>>>>> Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing signif= icant >>>>>> portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict. >>>>>> >>>>>> - This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone >>>>>> who remains. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do. >>>>>> - Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development? >>>>>> - Can the LLG learn from other logical languages? >>>>>> - Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical >>>>>> language? >>>>>> - Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future >>>>>> logical language? >>>>>> - Can the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in >>>>>> logical language? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote: >>>>>>> > IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> > Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken >>>>>>> (written) Lojban. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These are still not all the written or spoken instances, and besides >>>>>> fluctuations should be expected and have happened before. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 > > --94eb2c0dfe4a3752be05626b4f8a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2018-01-10 15:07 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <= ;comcaresvcs@gma= il.com>:
= Thanks for the links. I knew the newer version was fairly easy to find onli= ne, though we all now have the links right in front of us.

Most new internal contradictions that I can see come = from adding a dictionary at the end of Robin's CLL. They were added aut= omatically by importing from jbovla= ste.lojban.org and require manual comparison of definitions to explanat= ions in the older part of CLL. The older part itself in certain places was = patched such that new contradictions were introduced (most likely in an att= empt to fix other contradictions) but those are few in number.


.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan 10, 2018 00:54, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.nam= e@gmail.com> wrote:


2018-01-10 3:05 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <comcaresv= cs@gmail.com>:
Is Cowen's edition available online?


Probably here=C2=A0ht= tps://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince/orig but better to= scan it to be absolutely sure.

=C2=A0
For me the i= ssue will be accessing the newer version

<= div>
it's sold in paper form. It's available online.<= /div>

=C2=A0
since the original sits proudly= in my bookcase. For most I expect the issue is the opposite.

In any case we are faced first with questio= ns of how we want the LLG to function. Once we have a clearer path then, if= the path includes a more gradients lojban then we can discuss what standar= d we will use as a base.

.karis.=C2=A0

On Jan = 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote= :


2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services <= ;comcaresvcs@gma= il.com>:


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name= @gmail.com> wrote:
It = seems there are several long time participants who seek backward-compatible= stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and based on CLL.
But thos= e members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since BPFK has no rule= s such participation would be fruitless anyway.

Karis. I= suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone propose an officia= l policy on this stable variant of Lojban.

E.g.
1. confirm that CLL is the basement
2. select polic= y for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in Robin's edition of = CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL
3. fix obvious mistypes = (mostly in English text) of CLL
4. confirm that this corrected CL= L is the basement

This makes sense, though it will prob= ably involve discussion of whether Robin's edition changes are deterior= ation or not.=C2=A0

Well, we ca= n't just approve CLL without reading it first.
Robin's ed= ition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically without further ana= lysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce lots of new internal co= ntradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL and "Robin's= " ones.



.karis.

2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative = Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
I want to respond to a few of the comments mad= e by DerSaidin and some of the material to which these comments were made.= =C2=A0

On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net&g= t; wrote:
Hello,
I'm not an LLG member, I= asked to join this list as an observer a few years ago.


> I need reliable references for my future Lojbani= c works. Actually, there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is a= lready published in the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that= the identical free documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for t= he BPFK documents, I have more trouble with them because they are unstable = contents and placed on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone = who have account to edit the pages.

> Throughout all these years the community has known a= bout Lojban's problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose t= ime and again to let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any= chance of progress. Respecting those people's wish for baseline confor= mity, we are now not much further than we were then. Not only did it stifle= progress, those same people didn't even stay around to keep using thei= r "saved" Lojban. It was all a waste of time.

Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been inv= olved with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We have= n't abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original = publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' a= nd Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and effort= s to fix them.=C2=A0

Cer= tainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of people lea= rning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency. The baseline= was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "Will lojban = be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learning. Whether = efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did, a shorter ti= me, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan.=C2=A0


<= div>Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor clarificat= ions and improvements to explanations).
Some people wan= t Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes, make the language mo= re logical, fix issues, etc).



<= /div>
> Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, In= c. is established to promote the scientific study of the relationships betw= een language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of langu= age and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natura= l language; to implement and experiment with such a language...
<= br>
Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomp= lishing the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being a stable language is = useful for learning and using and experimenting with the language - further= ing the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being further developed is usef= ul for building substantial improvements to the language - also furthering = the LLG's purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually ex= clusive, Lojban cannot take both.
=

I don't see = that those of us seeking a more stable language necessarily want to prevent= significant change all together, but want change by evolution rather than = pronouncement or because one or a few people think their new way is the way= everyone should now speak.=C2=A0


My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doub= t and hope over which option Lojban has/is/will take.
This is= causing frustration: people wanting development, trying to implement impro= vements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel like they're was= ting their time.
This is causing doubt: people wanting stability = are unsure if their work using the language will be invalidated by changes = to the language in the future.
This is causing conflict: people a= re trying to pull Lojban in their preferred direction.

True.= =C2=A0

I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave = also identifies this conflict.
This conflict makes everyone (= on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.=C2=A0 This conflict a= lso make beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict al= so cultivate personal conflicts within the community.
Since Lojba= n is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems threaten the LLG to= o.



I think the p= ath forward is:

1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffir= m the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LLG members have the sam= e understanding?
- Do all LLG members agree with them?
=
2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how= Lojban fits into the LLG goals.

3) Decide if Lojb= an should be forever stable (maybe do development elsewhere) or continuousl= y developed.

Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard= from anyone and I think you're describing the conflict in opposing rat= her than significant ways. Continuously developed in a gradual way over tim= e vs changing significant portions of it all at once is how I would describ= e the conflict.=C2=A0

- This may drive away peop= le who disagree, but it empowers everyone who remains.

=
4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do.
= - Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn from other logical languages?
- Can the LLG = do work more meta than developing a particular logical language?
= - Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future logical lan= guage?
- Can the LLG explore/document options and design decision= s in logical language?



= On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wro= te:
> IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how much=
> Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years:
>
> https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png
>
> 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it.

Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they
are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken
(written) Lojban.

These are still not all the written or spoken i= nstances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened bef= ore.=C2=A0

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


_______________________________________________
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@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


--94eb2c0dfe4a3752be05626b4f8a-- --===============5010741855103514221== 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 --===============5010741855103514221==--