Received: from localhost ([::1]:51284 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebbMI-00067L-H3; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:13:38 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:37396) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebbLm-00066O-6e for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:13:07 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id v71so12145051wmv.2 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:13:05 -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=UjKPpdOE/JUwTTnElCkBvwU+5gcGEGJ8fwU969S6mO4=; b=arNMehTdupCptPKyFtG0X03EwVdm54cYYcINBh9VZNiANBHxlExbtuOGxQZ0BecnjN 3mVkBdaVLHcujmEAAUG7/bUJJdUU9seMat6dz8/e6+UMnvqm0Fh7vXEhxPdhbimMEUwN cYu7fMQ2iWT3YJ2DTlH3HVSygcr/QMI69rCgbOnteiH3VN80kUnvpbozG1hwY/dZIozo CwBZ9bw/xl2BERCGBtCX5tHybazH5EaJYxmG7vhxaLTebCM1FVrOoPV3VR328exAn9ej f9UPBYbft/o9HLks6f+pmBrkOjKQWFCFpvJXg3BGzk36A0r85rIL5YjpEU8V+96hlhU2 2BmA== 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=UjKPpdOE/JUwTTnElCkBvwU+5gcGEGJ8fwU969S6mO4=; b=IRZRBQmo/Lw1wPx76hAmdUD0BxXEM4RA+atoIYyTRtlRZsGn2WCYmOqiZ8I4DZojG+ UXA5IwhxmG4EqKKiXtVgBUhkAAVcsE4QnfB7OVksk3ad0/1qPhvD6DyopzDCh3QHP8Dq ttW6Iek2PJsXhI23DNEwvSOitAsv6wbLzTCTSz3tATHN+v4e8NdOCVzEYGWfr7Vdl2Jq 4R/7f+oQFlZg3KLaE8hXB0NJCP1tBDy227OgpHS8SNX1sYOwXRva+wNTxp1i1fbhsAf5 XiOOnT4Ige9FUJifhKa7w69xzm+QKrPgT1wDAwdGCZbU5pTp1S487IGr95aiIGpptkEM rj9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytd7+EnNs4Pv7N/CBvX/U+2SXFLqY9PkHOyqeznwuzgj3Wt+B5qN +2bPFm/2g2gwWFnLDVlqSl7am+O7TUy1gwHecOA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot/TfE6p7g9nfgB7COHwTYlMKX74BLCq2A9pT+I4FRC1DUWjZyOdrfMvHI3DL282JcaH6OKMBppt8eGsfQAWzE= X-Received: by 10.28.208.142 with SMTP id h136mr645313wmg.133.1516147979138; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:12:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.145.197 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.145.197 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:12:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: And Rosta Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:12:57 +0000 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="===============4761864473530457046==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4761864473530457046== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c193166b93d650562edb5c5" --94eb2c193166b93d650562edb5c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, I mixed up the numbering of the first two motions. "Loglang group" meant the group carrying out the work Motion 1 would mandate. I have yet to locate a thread with voting on this, and perhaps it had courteously been delayed to allow my input. I'm not sure whether it would be proper of me to attempt to cast a vote given that there is no recognized way to unresign yourself, but let me at least give my thoughts. For Motion #1 to pass narrowly is potentially divisive. If it passes but only by a slender majority, the LLG should seek some more consensual alternative. If Motion #1 fails, the Bylaws should be acknowledged to be obsolete or inapplicable to the LLG as it now is. Of course I'm all in favour of advocating for and supporting loglangs. I would support Motion #2 out of respect for all who have laboured to develop Lojban. I would abstain on Motion #3. I'm not personally in favour (because I think better loglangs could be made by starting from scratch and future generations of people would be served better by the better loglang). But there are folk who are spiritually invested both in Lojban and in a wish for it to be a loglang, and I wouldn't want to oppose them being granted their wish. --And. On 16 Jan 2018 23:35, "Curtis Franks" wrote: Loglang group? Motion #1 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting loglangs (and defines "loglang" for that purpose). Motion #2 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting Lojban (regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to any given definition). Motion #3 is about the LLG supporting the creation of a Lojban-derivative loglang (in accordance with the definition of "loglang" in Motion #1). On Jan 16, 2018 18:28, "And Rosta" wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 2018 15:31, "Ilmen" wrote: > > =E2=94=8C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80= =E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2= =94=80=E2=94=90 > =E2=94=82 =E2=94=98 > > I'm not certain that everything in a loglang must have a representation i= n > the logical form, specifically things like information structure markers > (e.g. {ba'e}, {kau}) and possibly some attitudinals or discursives. > > Maybe we should allow some extralogical information to be lost in a > conversion from the phonological from to PAS and then back to the > phonological form. > > But maybe even information structure markers could be expressed in the PA= S, > in the form of a separate proposition like "I emphasize the word X in my > previous utterance". > > > Everything illocutionary and information-structural can be expressed in > PAS, I would argue. Indeed I would argue that everything that can be > expressed in natural language can be couched in PAS. > > However, just because that's what I'd argue doesn't mean we have to > presuppose it to be true. But it seems to me that that if there did turn > out to be stuff that a natlang can express but a loglang can't, that's > something the loglang group (Motion 2, I think) should deliberate then, i= f > that hypothetical situation comes to pass, rather than something that mus= t > be deliberated now. > > --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 --94eb2c193166b93d650562edb5c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry, I mixed up the numbering of the first two mot= ions. "Loglang group" meant the group carrying out the work Motio= n 1 would mandate.

I hav= e yet to locate a thread with voting on this, and perhaps it had courteousl= y been delayed to allow my input. I'm not sure whether it would be prop= er of me to attempt to cast a vote given that there is no recognized way to= unresign yourself, but let me at least give my thoughts.

For Motion #1 to pass narrowly is potenti= ally divisive. If it passes but only by a slender majority, the LLG should = seek some more consensual alternative. If Motion #1 fails, the Bylaws shoul= d be acknowledged to be obsolete or inapplicable to the LLG as it now is. O= f course I'm all in favour of advocating for and supporting loglangs.

I would support Motion #2= out of respect for all who have laboured to develop Lojban.

I would abstain on Motion #3. I'm= not personally in favour (because I think better loglangs could be made by= starting from scratch and future generations of people would be served bet= ter by the better loglang). But there are folk who are spiritually invested= both in Lojban and in a wish for it to be a loglang, and I wouldn't wa= nt to oppose them being granted their wish.

--And.

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 Jan 2018 23:35, "Curtis Franks" &= lt;curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
Loglang group?

Motion #1= is about the LLG advocating for and supporting loglangs (and defines "= ;loglang" for that purpose).

Motion #2 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting Lojban (= regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to any given defini= tion).

Motion #3 is abou= t the LLG supporting=C2=A0 the creation of a Lojban-derivative loglang (in = accordance with the definition of "loglang" in Motion #1).
<= /div>

On Jan 16, 2018 18:28, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:


On 5 Jan 2018 15:31, "Ilmen" <= ;ilmen.pokebip= @gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20 
=E2=94=8C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=
=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=
=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=90
=E2=94=82 =E2=94=98

I'm not certain that everything in a loglang must have a representation=
 in
the logical form, specifically things like information structure markers
(e.g. {ba'e}, {kau}) and possibly some attitudinals or discursives.

Maybe we should allow some extralogical information to be lost in a
conversion from the phonological from to PAS and then back to the
phonological form.

But maybe even information structure markers could be expressed in the PAS,
in the form of a separate proposition like "I emphasize the word X in =
my
previous utterance".

Everything illocutionary and inform= ation-structural can be expressed in PAS, I would argue. Indeed I would arg= ue that everything that can be expressed in natural language can be couched= in PAS.=C2=A0=C2=A0

How= ever, just because that's what I'd argue doesn't mean we have t= o presuppose it to be true. But it seems to me that that if there did turn = out to be stuff that a natlang can express but a loglang can't, that= 9;s something the loglang group (Motion 2, I think) should deliberate then,= if that hypothetical situation comes to pass, rather than something that m= ust be deliberated now.

= --And.

_________________________________= ______________
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


--94eb2c193166b93d650562edb5c5-- --===============4761864473530457046== 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 --===============4761864473530457046==--