Received: from localhost ([::1]:51654 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebbiT-0006wQ-NT; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:36:33 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.161.173]:41390) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebbhw-0006uv-Mw for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:36:02 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b129so7584923ywa.8 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:36:00 -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=xPf4Xg//m5vvMv8HW9OaBVYE6oORbLgL356P7juHsDg=; b=dagUuOzvQ/axiv2VPsbkmQReUyaFs9MezePVhUhsiiEaFQULKqNafnl3UHqlIdXoC7 Y7Cf0Fysnd+oELUJvg2K8z2sy3bioqEFBBFCfp9q1tQQBiETSs0IT/Uf4RXdWkI+qBOv ybExrnfgHce6AtOLLf811yFp87dKcn/p/FIYw3DigjevIS57nJaBFZBrvov4agKOBfOE yauWwyxTo/q8CqV5M2LQIbvipn/m9ID71i9rjwwlGE0oY6vvk9v1j/KJ+TsReM3FfgrC OTXF8BbzhGA7essf5PZHpec+eTqL5eBynYLBHYiKpYUplfhwS+eSWXkB3hwlr8IKVKnp qnGg== 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=xPf4Xg//m5vvMv8HW9OaBVYE6oORbLgL356P7juHsDg=; b=NTFDlgKPJ+d5tblAipMKYBq561ez3OcpG+aAdy99wZx+Ayl/dA0VLUtcFr/whwWAyV rlTdjU6KxISn1rI2tpDZw61EcRHiZr0xA+RlqN2LLIT2J5VB3+gsN5+u+jhqG2cf8Njn 3/bXLC0HnpfGTY2PCbUqd37knkV36SchLGRzb/CoKGKbe+DhwsbtkqCH/j8vkUsSC5Q2 4mKaW/4rsoL1HIjyEywHOT9RYPKexu8vW7UMi9xjg38K9Jk+yCEgaE0ULLKGtJB6RcAL 7fvJEivtGdXiAZQGdTyItuA2aFvcSsH8ODizaQ8lyLkEyVAAQuSKYFOtj/oUD0CEFDjV 2d1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf+YMs+21MdzEwcEVJYXEHYftIpLGq+Hto1puJf/ZU0eylFTYhZ Npp0jnNwqNHV0lArtygp4JmR2ruSJUctCq3YN0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovhKgFUV+BWDc3xVdEGz7SXViAA/5FbFwNz4FGTundn0jwWF6ZizfRjA3IqBPN0lDPD4ki6+DLbxB819RxW98o= X-Received: by 10.129.57.68 with SMTP id g65mr905513ywa.277.1516149354303; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:35:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:35:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:35:53 -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="===============5010649942333695281==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5010649942333695281== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c8f02b095210562ee0775" --001a114c8f02b095210562ee0775 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I also worry about morally forcing ourselves to take on too many projects or otherwise split or divert our attentions away from tasks which some of us may deem valid and worthy. Thus, I personally (but on behalf of or in orientation toward the LLG) do not favor Motion #3 at this time, although I also have personal interest in efforts which would satisfy it. However, I think that I will maintain my provisional abstention in voting on Motion #3 for now, while I think about it more and process any additional input arising from this discussion. 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 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 _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --001a114c8f02b095210562ee0775 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I also worry about morally forcing ourselves to take on t= oo many projects or otherwise split or divert our attentions away from task= s which some of us may deem valid and worthy. Thus, I personally (but on be= half of or in orientation toward the LLG) do not favor Motion #3 at this ti= me, although I also have personal interest in efforts which would satisfy i= t.

However, I think that I wil= l maintain my provisional abstention in voting on Motion #3 for now, while = I think about it more and process any additional input arising from this di= scussion.

On Jan 16, 2018 19:13, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I mixed up the numb= ering of the first two motions. "Loglang group" meant the group c= arrying 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 sur= e whether it would be proper of me to attempt to cast a vote given that the= re is no recognized way to unresign yourself, but let me at least give my t= houghts.

For Motion #1 t= o 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 deve= lop Lojban.

I would abst= ain 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 p= eople 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 logla= ng, and I wouldn't want to oppose them being granted their wish.
<= font color=3D"#888888">

--And.


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

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

Motion #2 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting Lojb= an (regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to any given de= finition).

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

On Jan 16, 2018 18:28, "And Ro= sta" <and.= rosta@gmail.com> 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@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


--001a114c8f02b095210562ee0775-- --===============5010649942333695281== 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 --===============5010649942333695281==--