Received: from localhost ([::1]:51500 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebbdH-0006hB-Vk; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:31:11 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]:44287) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebbcg-0006gD-2p for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:40 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h62so6777033ybi.11 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:33 -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=F79l49fm1reWZXHXzjiO3mtoAeVhAt1HN6DdFBoEHXg=; b=Nv7FtKh37AVJCXOVBSzV5qFL+FrII9N8ud5XnOc/yXCetVDrCZ38LwH+mCUGYZ2/Oy Bsm0LEmAgt9k9E9Hux6Drjemh1hBnwPKxHlw36BoGL/lvts/SqTqBZrWQfmV4Mpe0tYo slym1M4G6iAicdrCJsZfzpuXO9ztiUqFZTje/w4SSe8ZfKRRkx+p1D15I8N7dD7L8Z6i erYGhsVW8Di9zpbNQsvIwraG7yC1lYO1lb6xJJdWdO/nz2ZjZfRxiaHxLpJfPuZGV9aj boNitiu1jgowUrKmZ013N9bUIaR+4XnLti+tp/WYuhdWIcNVt6+o9qmaAlZ+tG8WYYis DoLg== 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=F79l49fm1reWZXHXzjiO3mtoAeVhAt1HN6DdFBoEHXg=; b=T1vg5XyLJrimPwZhXPx7QJEnIDBdYQ/7dWkjAar0Wul6chJQT3yAUnpQVrqwmWBTbJ 6Tsphkn3neGF/1GYWPQriHz1kRs1aU99vlQEg+uRSUOzeS5rhOnTmwsRu6dAsnEOXFX3 fFkhvTwgm7aowDDRalhByVs66LN7RuXz+yeieB++vnoGHa0MRTm0XznqSIYw6k50ttNT b6d15myies1hV5DKEjKa0C3czIS9uktkph/hUvBslZcz6YnSR7RcE0jAByJ2ymrmU8HA VIgH6TPY33v0xxcwBIVU7GhCZUUvzQiUWfswZIf4MNVZ9D1ki4E9nimSx2Dy5kuO+WOS fHqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJIzXDoCKotdevpUwCu2yQLqoN82pW9SNQ/VOeLZyiI3e7Qg1gH l3iImjBArn2zKDUYAk5Wpuk3E+a1IozpBl7B7zo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosKCSRYCllb6JNp0ovsau5fiXdfBTD/LJH2EkaHY67hSyceqCnl9lO/xGPHD2MOfB5NirigduDMCcdeHUD3JR0= X-Received: by 10.37.188.146 with SMTP id e18mr30461470ybk.371.1516149027410; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:30:26 -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="===============6939776684347167014==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6939776684347167014== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0826762034968d0562edf481" --089e0826762034968d0562edf481 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The combination of Motion #1 and Motion #2 are enough to allow us to support any particular Lojban-derivative loglang (same def.) if we so desire on the basis of the individual case, should one arise, but does not obligate us to do so or to actively work toward one. In general, having /some/ loglang (same def.) should be enough to morally satisfy the members of this group and the community who favor Motion #3, at least as a second-best option. On Jan 16, 2018 19:13, "And Rosta" wrote: > 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 recogniz= ed > 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-derivativ= e > 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 = 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 P= AS, >> 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, = if >> that hypothetical situation comes to pass, rather than something that mu= st >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --089e0826762034968d0562edf481 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The combination of Motion #1 and Motion #2 are enough to = allow us to support any particular Lojban-derivative loglang (same def.) if= we so desire on the basis of the individual case, should one arise, but do= es not obligate us to do so or to actively work toward one. In general, hav= ing /some/ loglang (same def.) should be enough to morally satisfy the memb= ers of this group and the community who favor Motion #3, at least as a seco= nd-best option.

On Jan 16, 2018 19:13, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I mixed up th= e numbering of the first two motions. "Loglang group" meant the g= roup carrying out the work Motion 1 would mandate.
<= br>
I have yet to locate a thread with voting on thi= s, and perhaps it had courteously been delayed to allow my input. I'm n= ot sure whether it would be proper of me to attempt to cast a vote given th= at there is no recognized way to unresign yourself, but let me at least giv= e my thoughts.

For Motio= n #1 to pass narrowly is potentially divisive. If it passes but only by a s= lender majority, the LLG should seek some more consensual alternative. If M= otion #1 fails, the Bylaws should be acknowledged to be obsolete or inappli= cable to the LLG as it now is. Of course I'm all in favour of advocatin= g for and supporting loglangs.

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

I woul= d abstain on Motion #3. I'm not personally in favour (because I think b= etter loglangs could be made by starting from scratch and future generation= s of people would be served better by the better loglang). But there are fo= lk 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.<= /div>

--And.

On 16 Jan 2018 23:= 35, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
Loglang group?

Motion #1 is a= bout the LLG advocating for and supporting loglangs (and defines "logl= ang" for that purpose).

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

Motion #3 is about the= LLG supporting=C2=A0 the creation of a Lojban-derivative loglang (in accor= dance with the definition of "loglang" in Motion #1).
=

On Jan 16, 2018 18:28, "And Rosta"= <and.rosta@gma= il.com> wrote:
<= div>

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@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

--089e0826762034968d0562edf481-- --===============6939776684347167014== 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 --===============6939776684347167014==--