Received: from localhost ([::1]:53816 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ahDAD-0000L7-6f; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 02:27:17 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]:33001) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ahD9e-0000J7-Sj for llg-members@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 02:27:15 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k1so168475449vkb.0 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 02:26:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=1OXHMkyXbzRlcB+N7Obx95kLKsasNd7tMU/uEkyYgLo=; b=DEyVO0+noS5w7+qzfujdwtVW0W8euqD3OZ1bPM6RPbb/XLMLMo+DcyBSdIku7leejd q9jKTUg0HL6xOIsaq2jt5oZl68Rn5MG4gVdBRlL3Do3zdWC7DbGwSm6rUgpHCtXd9FLM q73M/mXhIDJxvUBc7onSYwCtx0J7bytAA6BSBMTP7NDXPI2N/nZh7FiI40jA3KgKagRk Sz5w3IetOlclIfzkkl4zx+/SXmuO2voERW2hKMiSemRbrslKKgF6urv7tDdNuHj/oIq7 eNHdjLjO4nViCfU9IhBsrF+IrlFIlpBE+FXh9no59TpHLuYvlEQ7hbH+Osy0FSMEIiOG HgEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=1OXHMkyXbzRlcB+N7Obx95kLKsasNd7tMU/uEkyYgLo=; b=iJ6QOdUsr8mWRLvTfCt0t0Mo9KkgIB/bRk451i5vW2tcxeosT4xpyPxwrQNc17klio 3lT6Hco6ePG+qtFybDIDT9rOEIREugFbTQmhiVE+ys977m3abvlwAqBiMF9RoiFpl2da lRC57mBdIYui+3Xd7TbXbE9W7E3H/fIgSzeMBXUBPlCFN+/8N9yFS3Ef0Tw6R/uFdpJY 6O1amlQSVei2cJCv0VZAWpsoSwlYPQX+UkqlilyG1WlvDg3FiaM4FOSaobM3NBV0xw8p qrTUe/AlDuNCb1NI6eAdex8gw4smMFwK6dnv9LNleipXh3rxXLtzMmS8Kg23+FKVM17b o0Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL5XJjYJSz2d89ju8smBxR4+OVSw++mDUq/OQrFVDvRSFNgw485cLF0juai1yEmmRQBb33teFVnXBII9w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.56.13 with SMTP id f13mr20080727vka.20.1458379596581; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 02:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 02:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.38.135 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 02:26:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56E5FFAF.1030405@selpahi.de> References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org> <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com> <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org> <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56E5FFAF.1030405@selpahi.de> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 05:26:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks 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] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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="===============8197730493587933645==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8197730493587933645== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114336b0cd54a0052e637516 --001a114336b0cd54a0052e637516 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> 3) As I've previously noted, it seems that what used to be the baselined >> (and thus not changing) gismu and cmavo lists have been replaced by new >> lists which include a whole lot of new stuff, possibly experimental (but >> there is no defined experimental space for gismu). > > > Well, the original text files still exist: > > http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/gismu.txt > > http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo.txt > > I am unaware of any changes to those files. > > Anyone can add cmavo or gismu to jbovlaste, but jbovlaste is not an official dictionary. Rather, it is an unwieldy mix of documenting usage and proposing new words before anyone has ever used them. > Is there any process by which a word may be considered and designated as official? If not, I think that one should be developed. I personally believe that potential utility should be the primary basis of judgment, with actual/realized widespread utility merely being and bonus merit. Some of the test should be objective and other parts (including, probably, some sort of final vote) should be subjective. Additionally, I think that, unless a proposed word/idea has a good reason to be rejected (which would require a separate motion), any word that does not pass the test at a given moment in time and which is not already official remains in limbo of being proposed without yet having been accepted or rejected. There is no use in deleting words and simply having them become proposed anew or having, in some sense, the records lost (to easy access). Preferably, the original creator of the proposal would have some say. Maybe some sort of separation in dictionary lists like jbovlaste (which mix proposals with official words) can be introduced so that higher-level sorting is facilitated without easy bleed over from the standpoint of the user's perception; I know that words are marked as experimental if they are, but this note is easy to miss. A bigger notice or even separate websites would make it more obvious. I am not sure how to implement this idea, though- I am merely spitballing. In any event, I do not believe that experimental entries in jbovlaste should be deleted (even in the event of a revitalized list which has been combed through with some entries being potentially upgraded to official stature) without the consent of the creator or, in extreme cases, with overwhelming and exceptional reason to do so (which primarily applies to ill-formed lujvo and possibly cmene, I think). I do not make this proposal with special personal investment. I do certainly have a stake in the outcome and I am somewhat fond of some of my work. But I am actually producing these ideas from a philosophical standpoint; regardless of my personal benefit, I would follow these same principles. (In fact, I participated in the ways that I have due to such motives or while recognizing these principles semi-explicitly in my mind.) --001a114336b0cd54a0052e637516 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>> 3) As I've previously noted, it seems that what used to be the= baselined
>> (and thus not changing) gismu and cmavo lists have been replaced b= y new
>> lists which include a whole lot of new stuff, possibly experimenta= l (but
>> there is no defined experimental space for gismu).
>
>
> Well, the original text files still exist:
>
> htt= p://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/gismu.txt
>
> htt= p://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo.txt
>
> I am unaware of any changes to those files.
>
> Anyone can add cmavo or gismu to jbovlaste, but jbovlaste is not an of= ficial dictionary. Rather, it is an unwieldy mix of documenting usage and p= roposing new words before anyone has ever used them.
>

Is there any process by which a word may be considered and d= esignated as official? If not, I think that one should be developed. I pers= onally believe that potential utility should be the primary basis of judgme= nt, with actual/realized widespread utility merely being and bonus merit. S= ome of the test should be objective and other parts (including, probably, s= ome sort of final vote) should be subjective. Additionally, I think that, u= nless a proposed word/idea has a good reason to be rejected (which would re= quire a separate motion), any word that does not pass the test at a given m= oment in time and which is not already official remains in limbo of being p= roposed without yet having been accepted or rejected. There is no use in de= leting words and simply having them become proposed anew or having, in some= sense, the records lost (to easy access). Preferably, the original creator= of the proposal would have some say. Maybe some sort of separation in dict= ionary lists like jbovlaste (which mix proposals with official words) can b= e introduced so that higher-level sorting is facilitated without easy bleed= over from the standpoint of the user's perception; I know that words a= re marked as experimental if they are, but this note is easy to miss. A big= ger notice or even separate websites would make it more obvious. I am not s= ure how to implement this idea, though- I am merely spitballing. In any eve= nt, I do not believe that experimental entries in jbovlaste should be delet= ed (even in the event of a revitalized list which has been combed through w= ith some entries being potentially upgraded to official stature) without th= e consent of the creator or, in extreme cases, with overwhelming and except= ional reason to do so (which primarily applies to ill-formed lujvo and poss= ibly cmene, I think).

I do not make this proposal with special personal investment= . I do certainly have a stake in the outcome and I am somewhat fond of some= of my work. But I am actually producing these ideas from a philosophical s= tandpoint; regardless of my personal benefit, I would follow these same pri= nciples. (In fact, I participated in the ways that I have due to such motiv= es or while recognizing these principles semi-explicitly in my mind.)

--001a114336b0cd54a0052e637516-- --===============8197730493587933645== 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 --===============8197730493587933645==--