[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
I expect to inform our membership of the existence and state of
negotiations, but unless one of them asks, I expect that they will not
see any actual postings except something that is sent as a 'formal
proposal'.
The following is not official policy of LLG. It is written for
negotiation purposes only, and represents no commitments on the part of
LLG. The following is written after consultation with pc and Nora. I
may have a chance to consult with Cowan before sending it to you, but am
cc'ing him and he can add in any comments as he wishes.
The overwhelming sentiment from Nora and pc is that, while it is
nice to see that TLI is again willing to talk, the negotiation position
TLI has assumed is not very constructive. Summarizing, it appears that
TLI has failed to recognize (or remember) why it is that LLG split off
organizationally. The proposal basically returns all of those issues to
status quo ante the split. The issues underlying the split, and indeed
the political turmoil that has plagued the Loglan community since 1982
must be addressed and resolved to everyones satisfaction before
organizational unity is even possible (and THEN we have to talk about how
it could be made practical).
The proposal also fails to recognize that LLG is substantially
controlled by its members, and not by its Board. Many of those members
have become involved since the split, and have no historical tie to TLI,
nor the slightest loyalty to JCB. It will be a political battle to
convince some of these people that negotiations are desirable and in
order, and for such negotiations to succeed, they will have to believe
that they stand to gain something substantial in return for any
concessions made to TLI. Below, I've included an excerpt of Nora's
minutes from last year's meeting; if it is not clear from this excerpt,
it was the decided opinion of the membership at that meeting that LLG was
in the stronger position both, organizationally, financially, and in
terms of the robustness and actual use of its version of the language.
Thus a common rationale for all of what I say below must be that in any
case where LLG gives up some control over things it does now control,
there must be some at least equivalent concession from TLI in favor of
LLG.
What JCB and TLI seems not to have realized is that the protracted
legal battle has decidedly hurt JCB's and TLI's clout with the community.
We have been forced to stand on our own for 5 years now in the face of
total hostility, and have tripled the maximum size of TLI. Most of our
more active people joined in that time period and have absolutely no
reason to believe JCB or TLI to be necessary to the continuation of
Lojban with or without the name 'Loglan'. They have been radicalized by
the strife, and in effect have made some of us 'leaders' who started the
fight among the most moderate in attitude towards JCB and TLI. In
effect, to sell a reunited effort wherein LLG gives up anything at all,
TLI must come up with reasons why we (the Loglan/Lojban community) should
find its existence valuable. I believe it is not too late for this, but
the minutes below show that the membership here now feels that JCB has
become irrelevant to Loglan's success unless he again earns relevancy.
This will no doubt be hard for him to swallow, and even I find that the
disrespect for elders, their experience and authority, in the generation
after me is difficult to deal with - but it is a fact of life.
This response should be considered unofficial and is my own belief
as to what the negotiating situation is, given my understanding of the
members' positions.
Some key definitions re: LLG and TLI that affect how I interpret
the proposal.
Members: has 5 definitions in LLG parlance. The largest definition
is all of those on our active mailing lists, probably corresponding to
the complete TLI mailing list, aound 950. Second is the active
subscribers, numbering around 680, that get either JL or LK,
corresponding to the old TL mailing list. Third are 'active Lojbanists',
almost all JL subscribers (some people in Australia/New Zealand share a
single subscription to save us all money), 244 for JL16 but only around
120 for JL17, probably corresponding to one of the two TLI memberships
(the dues-paying one that no longer has policy-making power). The legal
voting membership is 12, probably corresponding to the TLI voting
membership - no dues are required, and membership is by invitation based
on likeliness to participate in LLG governance. Finally, we have a
defined class of 'sustaining membership' for financial supporters, but
this has never been implemented.
I am presuming that TLI still has the two classes: dues-paying
members, and voting members. The latter, as I recall, consists of only a
half dozen people, and may or may not be identical to the Board of
Trustees.
In my opinion, decisions about the fate of the language must be put
to the dues-paying/active-Lojbanist level, if not to the larger
community. Decisions on the fates and policies of the organizations can
(and probably legally must) rest with the smaller governance memberships.
I should note that there is significant sentiment within LLG for
expanding the governance membership.
Board: LLG has one entity called the Board - its Board of
Directors. This is probably identical in function to the TLI Board back
when you served on it, RAM, except that almost all of our meetings are
held by telephone, and decisions are almost always made by consensus or
unanimity. As President, I effectively serve at the pleasure of the
Board.
TLI at last report had two 'Boards', the Board of Trustees and The
Board of Directors. The results of the 1983-4 political battles were, as
I recall, to make the Board of Directors effectively powerless advisors
to JCB, serving at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees or the voting
membership - I can't recall which. One LLG complaint about the nature of
TLI is that the Board of Trustees effectively consists of friends of JCB,
and seem to consider their primary loyalty to be to him, and not to the
membership, the community, or the language.
Academy: TLI at last report had 3 members on its Academy - JCB,
you, and Steve Rice. Frankly, based on what he's shown in his net
postings and Lognet articles, Steve Rice's knowledge of the language sets
a very low standard.
LLG has no formal Academy. Our change approval process requires me
to appoint an informal committee to review any proposed changes to
baselines, reporting the results to the community which can override
those decisions. The committee I use has a membership specific to the
issue involved. Cowan, Nora, and I tend to be involved in most
committees, and I try to include the proposer on the committee. A
somewhat larger group has acquired the nickname "Jimbobs" and consists of
those on the network who are actively writing or speaking the language.
pc is included on a variety of groups specific to his interests, such as
logic, as well as all 'major' issues, but hasn't been working actively
with the language and doesn't feel qualified to work at the bits and
pieces level in general. Attendees at LogFest constitute the effective
committee for any proposals brought up during LogFest - this tends to be
things like major baselines, etc., but also word proposals and whatever.
We expect to discuss baselining our rafsi (affix) assignment list at the
next LogFest.
Following is an excerpt from last years' annual meeting minutes,
which constitutes LLG's official policy on negotiations with TLI.
" Negotiations with the Institute:
Agreements made at members meeting authorizing the split were re-
read. It was noted that we never got a positive response to our
proposals.
Discussion of "Do we still want to reconcile?" and "What would our
aim be?"; the latter especially in the light of the fact that we
have both gone public already.
Art Weiners wishes it noted in the minutes that he would not vote
the same on item #3 (at that member's meeting) now as he did then.
Much discussion and motions/amendments on actual wording of policy
regarding reconciliation. The original version was:
MOVED: That:
A) The policy of LLG be to continue to express an expressed desire
of reconciliation with JCB and the Institute.
B) There no longer be any special authority given to the
pronouncements of JCB or the Institute about the language.
and
C) Lojban is Loglan.
Much of the discussion was on point C: over whether they
could/would be considered "fighting words"; whether we would be
seen as not believing that "Loglan" is validly applied to our
language. The sense of the attendees seemed to be that we did
indeed believe that "Lojban is Loglan" (or at least "... a
Loglan"), but that, if they might be considered fighting words,
they would be counter-productive in a policy that expresses a
desire for reconciliation. This is all the secretary's reading
of what happened, put in for the benefit of those who were not
present in order that they understand the areas of controversy;
there may be differences of opinion with this reading.
The final result was:
MOVED: That:
A) Expending resources towards a reconciliation with JCB or the
Institute is not a good use of resources at this time, but we remain open
to such a reconciliation should their position change in the future.
and
B) There no longer be any special authority given to the pronouncements
of JCB or the Institute about the language.
- PASSED.
Specific response to TLI's proposal:
> Reference is made to your letter of October last, of which you sent
> me a copy on 3 May. Although now somewhat out of date with respect
> to specific dates and participants, I will accept it as the LLG
> position as to the relationship between LLG and TLI.
It has not been specifically adopted by LLG or its Board, but is a
statement reviewed by Cowan, Nora, and myself, and I think still is
effectively our personal, if not official, policy. Per the last annual
meeting as above, we probably cannot adopt an official policy unless TLI
comes forth with a negotiating stance that seems constructive. I cannot
yet call the current proposal a significant change in TLI's position as
needed under that meeting's vote, though I'm hoping one will develop out
of this exchange enough to put the issue to the membership attending at
LogFest for consideration.
> Although not a member of the TLI Board, I have been authorized to
> discuss an accommodation with LLG on their behalf. Of course, any
> agreement reached would have to be ratified by the TLI Board on our
> side. I am prepared to discuss aspects as outlined in part III of
> the a/m document.
Similarly, any agreement would need ratification by at least our
Board, and most likely our voting membership if any Bylaw action was
required. The procedure for Bylaw changes is a bit cumbersome.
Dissolution takes a unanimous vote of the Directors, and a 2/3 vote of
the members. This is not politically likely in the near term regardless
of the results of negotiations.
> TLI agrees with the arguments in favour of a remerger as outlined
> under your Option A, but if that is not possible, one of the other
> options might also be considered.
The position described below seems to in effect define 'remerger' of
the language as secondary to remerger of the organizations. Our policy
must be to insist that merger of the language be independent of the
organizational issues, because since Lojban has been placed in the public
domain, it exists independently of LLG. If LLG goes away, Lojban still
exists (and no doubt a sizable group of people will simply form a new LLG
or its equivalent to carry on). We have acted to make this situation the
default, so as to prevent an organizational hijacking of the language, as
we feel was the effect of the 1982-4 squabbles. Thus, pragmatically, any
merger of the two languages requires a real political selling job on our
part, or else it won't be accepted by the community.
> TLI's proposals are as follows: 1. The Institute and LLG undergo a
> de facto merger. LLG dissolves.
This is politically impossible, as described above, until a long-
standing record of cooperation is demonstrated, if even then. I suggest
a proposal for an interim state leading to consideration of this as an
option is the best you can hope for.
However, I will discuss the following at least partially with such a
hypothetical merger as a possibility though I myself would oppose it. I
suspect that TLI would find the terms of any merger that we would have
any chance to sell to our membership unacceptable at this time.
> Members of LLG become members of the Institute automatically. Paid-
> up members of LLG are given appropriate credit for Institute dues.
> Members in arrears are forgiven their arrears and encouraged to join
> the Institute.
Types of membership need to be more clearly defined here. I am
presuming non-voting membership based on context. LLG set up its
memberships based on the opinion that TLI membership as currently
constituted was meaningless. The only thing the dues-paying membership
appears to get is a small discount on purchases and Lognet, the total
value of which is almost negligible. I believe that we would be
ethically required to offer refunds on JL subscriptions, for example, if
JL were to cease publication. This part of the offer is likely to be
ignored unless TLI membership became much more substantial. People know
when they are buying a pig in a poke.
> Any assets of LLG (and its mailing lists) remaining after
> dissolution are donated to the Institute. The Institute does not
> assume LLG's liabilities.
I believe that this would be illegal. LLG liabilities must be taken
care of before any distribution of assets, else our Board would be liable
for legal action comparable to the similar misappropriations that took
place during our savings and loan industry scandal of the past few years.
Since our liabilities exceed our liquid assets, there would be nothing
remaining to donate to TLI.
> The energies of the combined Institute will be directed toward the
> promulgation of Loglan, as hereinafter described.
This after is the goal.
> [RAM: Rationale; TLI has existed as an entity much longer than LLG,
> is still active with a language which is clearly a direct descendant
> of that originally described.]
The rationale presumes that a merger of organizations is necessary
to merger of the language efforts, which is not the case. If there is a
merger, the resulting organization would no doubt have to differ
structurally from both existing organizations in substantive ways to gain
approval - in such circumstances, what the name of the organization is
becomes relatively unimportant.
I counter the rationale by noting that, regardless of length of
existence, LLG has a much larger membership in the community sense and
greater name recognition nationally and internationally through its
regular activity on the nets. This name recognition is important to
Loglan's success in academia. TLI still bears the stigma of JCB's
bureaucrat-bashing when it sought NSF-funding in the late-70s.
Meanwhile, LLG has pretty good chances to seek and obtain academic
funding in the next year. It is of course our contention that both
versions of the language are 'clearly a direct descendant of that
originally described'.
> 2. The Institute immediately creates a new directorship which it
> would be pleased to be filled by Nora LeChevalier, if she desires.
As I noted yesterday, Nora is rather more hostile to TLI than she
was in 1984, and would likely decline. LLG would insist in any merger on
a proportion in all governance structures proportionate with its
membership, money/assets contributed, speakers of the language (for roles
like the Academy), etc.
> The Institute immediately creates a new position in the Academy, to
> be filled by John Parks-Clifford, if he so desires.
I suspect that he would not so desire, as he also remains highly
hostile to JCB, though he suspects that the radicalization of the rest of
LLG by the strains of the legal action makes him rather a moderate. More
than likely if LLG people were to participate in the Academy, we would
insist on the right to choose them, since we know who among us knows the
language now a bit better than JCB does. pc, for example, considers
himself too rusty for any primary decision-making role. Again, LLG would
insist on at least equivalent membership for our people in a post-merger
Academy.
Of course, we believe that the Academy has no real role to fill -
since we are operating quite well by consensus.
> The rules of the Academy, which now provide for life tenure and a
> veto for each members, would be modified by some combination of (a)
> the possibility of removal of members. (b) a specific tenure;
> and/or (c) decisions by majority vote.
I'm presuming a semi-colon after (a) ... members.
We would want the capability for some larger body of members to be
able to override the Academy by popular decision. Clarification is
needed on how members would be appointed and/or removed.
> 3. The Institute's Board passes a resolution expressing its regret
> over the schism; welcoming the members of LLG to the Institute;
> thanking the members of LLG for their contribution to Loglan;
> recognizing the absolutely irreplaceable and vital role of the
> founder in the development of Loglan; and expressing its confidence
> in the continued success and growth of Loglan. This resolution is
> published in Lognet.
I'm not sure this kind of resolution is meaningful. It will take
deeds to show changes of attitude.
> 4. LLG, prior to dissolution, creates a committee to list possible
> modifications to Loglan grammar in light of the experiences of LLG
> with Lojban. The list will be submitted to the Academy, which will
> make a good faith determination which modifications will be adopted
> using the same standard as for other proposed changes, with the
> exception that the Academy will assign due weight and regard to the
> fact that LLG has already explored and adopted the modifications.
> This committee also supervises the conversion of Lojban, text,
> examples, primers, teaching aids, etc. to Loglan, as appropriate.
> Otherwise, the current state of the grammar and vocabulary of Loglan
> continues in place
This would not be acceptable to our membership. We can perform this
exercise, see what the resulting Loglan comes out to be, and try to sell
it to the community, but I doubt that anyone who has learned Lojban would
buy it. Frankly, we have a lot more people who have learned Lojban, and
are actively using it on a day to day or week to week basis than have
done so with TLI Loglan. These people will have no interest in giving up
what they have learned merely for 'peace', especially if they aren't con-
vinced the resulting language is better for the change. JCB has made
many decisions on the language justified by what he calls 'relearning
cost'. He needs to realize that relearning cost must be multiplied by
numbers of people as well.
Furthermore, the relearning cost from Lojban to TLI Loglan is higher
than the reverse direction. Especially if your grammar change proposal
makes TLI Loglan much closer to Lojban, the basic cost of relearning for
TLI people is limited to vocabulary, as Lojban is a superset of TLI's
language. But with 40% more prims and double the number of LWs, there
are many things in Lojban that are actively in use by Lojbanists that do
not simply map back to TLI Loglan, and these esoteric uses are increasing
month by month because people have started learning them. For example,
the perfective tenses added as part of the tense redesign that pc and I
did a couple years ago have proven popular and useful, especially in
overseas Lojbanists. But there may not be room in the LW space available
to TLI Loglan to incorporate this design, so that a morphology change is
needed to make more LWs possible, which then changes the equations on how
affixes are assigned, etc., etc.
I think TLI Loglan CAN evolve to be compatible with Lojban,
especially since our rate of change should slow down with book
publication this fall. But it will take a long time to adopt changes
evolutionarily to the point that the TLI version could be acceptable, and
meanwhile the quantity (and quality) Lojban use is literally exploding
out of our control.
The estimated volume of Lojban text now exceeds 1 Megabyte (actually
my archive files run about 3 meg, but include commentary and the like so
as to be about a 3 to 1 ratio). I just did an analysis showing that
we've had usage of some 2700 Cpxs in actual text on line (and two
significant writers have almost none of their stuff on computer), with
some of these words being used dozens of times, and 68000 total predicate
words (in addition to LWs probably at double that number or more). I get
several new pages of text every month (and I doubt that I'm seeing all of
it any more). Converting this text to TLI Loglan is probably impossible
because it queues up faster than it can be converted. As one example, we
have the entire text of the original 'Adventure' computer game translated
to Lojban, perhaps 1/3 the length of a paperback book alone in one text.
Remember also that we have designs in areas like tense,
attitudinals, MEX, letterals, that are several times more elaborate and
robust than TLI's design. You can convert TLI design to match ours by
straight substitution, but there is no substitution for features not yet
a part of the TLI design.
Note that any effort to identify proposed changes per this paragraph
has to depend on total openness of the TLI design to our people (we of
course would be totally open to TLI, but then we already are). There is
too much work for one or two people to do to be playing with obsolete
information. We cannot tolerate this silly game of trade secrets in a
cooperative effort.
> , as does its policy regarding licensing, publication, trademark,
> copyrights, and royalties.
Absolutely unacceptable on all items. As I said above, TLI appears
to forget why LLG was founded - specifically to free Loglan from these
silly legal constraints that keep people from using the langauge as they
see fit. We have been successful BECAUSE we have rejected these
policies. And it is not within our capability to trade these policies
away, even if any of us wanted to, because we could not bring along
anyone except those of us who actually signed the piece of paper.
> A committee will be formed to discuss issues in connection with
> conversion of public domain LLG materials to Loglan.
This presumes it is possible, which it may not be.
> 5. LLG, prior to dissolution, will do its utmost, or instruct its
> counsel to do his utmost, to vacate the judgment declaring Loglan to
> be generic, and will seek to continue to have Loglan registered as a
> trademark. The Institute's counsel will assist in this endeavor on
> a pro bono basis. [RAM:In view of the judgment of the Appeal Board
> this appears to me to be flogging a dead horse. The rationale is
> that the combined group would still have an interest in preventing
> the adoption of the name by others for inimical purposes.]
1. Inimical is in the eye of the beholder. There is no use of
Loglan at this point which is inimical to the language. Indeed, I
suspect that someone actually promoting an unrelated language using the
name would in effect be merely providing us free publicity. The best way
to control the purity of the effort and the design is by massive
distribution of correct information, to dwarf any misuses that might take
place around the edges. This has worked for Lojban. Even though, for
example, Carter continues to work on splinter languages, and a new
splinter led by someone named Bruce Gilson, also exists, we have actually
been able to capitalize a bit from these efforts, and are stronger in the
minds of the conlang community for having the confidence and tolerance to
put up with them.
2. It is beyond beating a dead horse. Since the last ruling was on
a point of law, it cannot be 'vacated' unless the law is changed. This
has not been a civil suit where the parties can simply go off and agree
that the issue didn't really matter, because the main party in question
here is not TLI or LLG, but The US Patent and Trademark Office, and they
cannot violate the law merely because we tell them we don't care anymore.
Loglan is generic in nature, and generic it shall remain - there is
nothing we could do about it.
I suggested a long time ago that TLI could gain a protected name in
either of two ways - devising an offshoot of the name Loglan that would
be specific to TLI products alone, and creating an independent
certification group, perhaps associated with the Academy, with a
'certification mark' that indicates the validity of a product. The
latter works better but legally the organization which certifies cannot
be a producer or publisher of that which it certifies so it would have to
be independent of TLI.
> If the LLG Board thinks that there is any likelihood of coming to
> terms, based on our respective positions, I would try to attend the
> coming Logfest to discuss it further.
It doesn't sound like it from the above proposal, but I vaguely
suspect that you are aware that the proposal as presented would be still
born as a basis for discussion.
More productive in deterrmining the value of LogFest attendance
would be your own statements (private if necessary) regarding what you
think you could take away from a LogFest negotiation and realistically
sell to TLI over various tineframes. I'm willing to continue to
negotiate via email with you on presenting a package that would be re-
spectfully discussed by the members, but the proposal thus far, without
some real concessions, will not only fail to bear fruit, but will further
serve to radicalize the community into believing that negotiation with
TLI is a waste of time.
> With respect to your proposal A, fourth paragraph, I would support
> an arrangement, if no agreement is reached, for each side to make a
> presentation, said presentations to be sent to all members of LLG
> and TLI, and a vote taken on merger, which, to succeed, would
> require a majority of both groups independently.
This one paragraph is the main reason I suspect that you realize
what is really necessary, assuming that you mean what I interpret this as
saying.
It is probably the only realistic way to affect a reconciliation
where some or both groups have to make real concessions - the people who
have to make the sacrifices should be the ones to decide what concessions
they are willing to accept.
If 'merger' is talking about organizations only, this won't be
enough.
If 'members of TLI' includes only voting members, and not all dues-
paying members, it would be a waste of time, since JCB and Jenny are I
believe a majority in and of themselves.
If all dues-paying members of TLI, and all JL subscribers have the
right to vote and we are talking about a majority of both groups who
respond and express their vote within some fixed timeframe, we can
probably work towards something like this. I would envision that we
would make a proposal with TLI making a response, and TLI making a
proposal with LLG making a response. Each membership votes on both
proposals at once. If one proposal gets a majority in both groups, it is
adopted, and if both proposals get a majority in both groups, the higher
percentage vote determines the winning proposal. We might actually want
a 2/3 vote rather than a majority to be sure that the community is truly
behind a plan to be adopted.
I now roughly outline the plan I would attempt to sell to the TLI
membership. If part or all of this can be agreed upon by TLI without a
vote it is probably salable to our membership.
0. The two organizations agree in principle to submit the matter to
the members. The existence and steps of the plan will be immediately
made public.
1. Interchange of information. The two groups agree to fully share
all available design information with each other to ensure that any
decisions made regarding the language merger. This information includes
not only active design, but pending design change proposals that are
under serious condition as well.
Parties agree to that the intellectual property claims of the other
organization will be respected with regard to any materials exchanged
under this interchange, with policies towards materials obtained
independently not covered by this agreement.
Even if no merger takes place, this is in the best interest of both
organizations, since we will know that the other organization has
available correct data rather than incorrect data in making statements
about each other's design internally or publicly.
[Thus for example, our shortly forthcoming book will have a list of
TLI Loglan prims and LWs and the corresponding values in Lojban. This
will be there whether or not an agreement takes place. It is in both
organizations' interest that the information we publish in this book be
accurate, since it then renders TLI materials of more potential resource
value for users of the book. It is thus urged that intellectual property
claims not forbid such dissemination of correct information in place of
publically available but incorrect information.]
Information will be shared as fully as possible, and certain
designated persons in each organization will be accessible to the other
party to answer questions about the content and interpretation of
materials. Such contact point will endeavor to speak authoritatively in
response to such questions, and both organizations will support their
spokesperson in providing the most accurate information. I would
envision you and John Cowan as initial key spokespeople, in your
respective roles as chief grammarians.
2. Writing system interoperability will be designed. Each
organization will adopt an alternative orthography for writing its
version of the language that is compatible with the other language
version's writing system. Cowan's alternative orthography for Lojban is
our first cut at the Lojban side of this. Neither side commits to using
the alternative, but it is made available to people in the other group
who are uncomfortable with the regular writing system.
Each side will develop a basic software capability to convert plain
ASCII text from one writing system to the other.
3. Morphological interoperability - Both versions' regular and
alternative writing system shall incorporate some symbolic representation
that is capable of visually and unambiguously expressing features found
in the other version's morphology should they be adopted as part of
merger efforts.
4. Word mapping - A definitive mapping of prims and LWS in each
version to corresponding ones in the other version will be prepared, with
notes on semantic differences where identified.
Corresponding conventions on Cpx-making will similarly be identified
where possible (i.e. we should be able to provide you with sets of
usable Lojban equivalents for your Cpxs ending with madzo, to allow a TLI
Loglanist to easily know how to substitute the correct Lojban word in a
Lojban version of their text.
Note that the biggest complication in this is incompatibility of
prim place structures. This will be a tough problem to solve at this
stage.
5. Either or both organizations will prepare what they see as a set
of discrete differences between the two language morphologies and
grammars. These differences will be divided into 1)
enhancements/restrictions to the formal algorithm or YACC grammar of a
feature; 2) addition or omission of a small feature such as a LW,
supporting a selma'o/lexeme within a feature; 3) changes within the
structure of a feature (e.g. differing priority of grouping etc.)
The other organization will consider and respond regarding each
difference as a proposed change, indicating whether it a) would be
adopted willingly without membership approval, b) could feasibly be
adopted with membership approval (whether it technically can work in the
other version, as opposed to actually being acceptable), or c) total
incompatibility which would require an either/or language version choice
by the members. Ideally, no differences would end up in the last group.
6. If all differences turn out to be 5-a) adoptable, then the only
incompatibility in the language versions is in vocabulary.
If all changes in 5-b) are enhancements/additions in one direction
or the other [5-1), and 5-2)], then each language version is upward
compatible to the other in all features, and can be made compatible
except for vocabulary by members vote.
If 5-c) incompatibilities exist, then the only possible resolutions
are to immediately choose one language version over the other, or to go
our separate ways with one or both language versions eventually dying
out.
A 4th possibility exists as the exception to the last three cases.
All of the steps leading to the determination of which condition
exists per these four will be completed as quickly as possible, ideally
within 3 months, and definitely within 6 months. The efforts will be
accorded highest priority until completed.
7. Given the information from 1-6) one or both organizations will
prepare proposals for submission to the members of both groups, with
supporting information indicating the general nature of the change, and
the reasons why approval is desired. If the other side is opposed, they
may give reasons either general or specific. The package of detailed
supporting information will be made available to all voters upon request.
The exact mechanics of voting are negotiable, as long as it is
reasonably assured that the voting will be honest, and completed wothin a
reasonably short time by both groups.
8. LLG's proposal to the TLI membership would likely be from among
the following:
a) if the differences reduce to vocabulary changes only after
adoption of willing changes, we will ask the TLI membership to adopt the
vocabulary change to Lojban's as a new standard for Loglan, with the
proviso that LLG would support people indefinitely using the older
vocabulary by making available software to perform vocabulary and or-
thography replacement. We would also make this software available to
TLI, and would expect that either group would therefore accept text for
publication written in either vocabulary set.
b) if the differences reduce to vocabulary only after adoption of
some grammar changes requiring member approval, we will seek such
approval plus the vocabulary change to the Lojban vocabulary, offering
support per a) for people continuing to use the old vocabulary.
c) If the language versions are partially or totally incompatible,
we will seek adoption of the current (possibly modified) Lojban as the
new standard Loglan.
d) if the 4th condition per 6 entails, we will present a proposal
along the lines of the above.
LLG will include in these proposals the commitment to produce and
provide compatible data files for MacTeach and other software, and will
pay for the free distribution of these data files to all bona fide owners
of said software. It will release rights to said data files to TLI after
such distribution. At its discretion, LLG might also offer a free or
non-profit distribution of other information supporting the conversion to
the modified software to LLG members holding certain appropriate
products. For example, a set of Lojban equivalent examples and a tape
for each example in L1 would be prepared and made available at minimum
prices to current owners of L1.
LLG would consider making TLI a licensed distributor of all LLG
products to its membership, offering equal to its largest discount to any
customers, so that TLI could gain from retail sale of wholesale purchased
products. LLG would also negotiate to aid TLI in producing updates to
TLI materials compatible with the changed language, with allocation of
costs and rights to be determined. LLG would not seek to have undue con-
trol over, or gain significant profit from any aid it gives TLI in
converting to a member-approved common language.
In short, LLG will be willing to undertake considerable commitment
and expense to minimize the transition for members most affected if its
proposal is adopted.
10. While these substantive language issues are being settled, LLG
and TLI could negotiate on organizational and policy differences. It is
unlikely that the most basic differences can be resolved till we know
what language version(s) will survive.
The nature of the cooperation that takes place in resolving the
language question will largely determine LLG's attitude towards further
steps involving organizational cooperation.
11. Any agreement will be made with the essential recognition that
time is critical. LLG is in the process of preparing several books
setting forth the Lojban design in far greater depth than TLI has ever
provided for its versions. The first will be a dictionary/grammar
reference that will substantially commit us to the current Lojban trial
baseline that will come into being with that publication (expected within
a few months). We will not significantly hold up production for mere
possibilities of resolution of differences. Later books will be based on
that initial book baseline, so that with passing time, negotiability of
language issues will dwindle very rapidly.
Because I will be fully engaged in book production, as well as
dealing with surgery for Nora, learning Russian and adopting children
from Russia, and probably preparing research plans and funding proposals
supporting the bilingual raising of our children as Lojban speakers (we
have identified a likely research associate who leads a group researching
child language learning). I will probably delegate much of the above
language difference resolution to Cowan and others.
The following is my clarificational response to some questions
raised by McIvor in response to the preceding.
> a) You and I both know that we are wasting our time if either of us
> thinks that a combined language is going to be principally Lojban or
> Loglan.
As I said, it is either principly one or principly the other, or we
start over again from scratch (or maybe come up with a Solomon-like half-
way measure that manages to be both while being neither more than the
other. LLG people are probably more resistant to any changes than TLI
people, since one of our starting principles has been the need for
baselines and a cessation to change. TLI has a principle, indeed a com-
mitment from JCB at the end of L1, that his version of the language will
continue to change, hence TLI people should not be adverse to such a
change if well-studied to be sure it is good, that happens to bring the
TLI version into conformance with Lojban. Whether you label it Lojban is
up to you - Lojban is merely 'Logical Language' as a name in the
langauge, and there are other ways to make the name that would be
slightly different, if name is the issue.
> b) If there is hostility to TLI in LLG and vice versa, it is because
> of unflattering remarks made by top brass in both camps to their
> members. If we, in both camps, think we could sell our respective
> languages to the members of the other camp, surely it is not beyond
> our capacities, given the will, of selling a combined language to
> both as well.
Our main selling point to TLI people AND to our own is that we have
a working community using the language and a body of text (and 1000 pages
of Ju'i Lobypli, etc.). The same could not be claimed of a hybrid. This
is not to say that it couldn't be sold, but the task is not as easy.
Reaching a peace by punishing both sides is not necessarily productive.
> c) Re relative strengths. I note that LK was printed in 475 copies.
> I imagine you have a few spares,
Actually, we print just what we think we will need for the issue,
plus spares to cover new people for the next 3 months or so. We overrun
JL and LK by less than 25 in any case, since I get full price discount
from my current printer for 25 or more copies and there is no need to
overrun more than that therefore.
> and quite a few of these go to people like myself that are not
> active in Loglan.
YOU aren't active in Loglan???? Actually, by definition LK goes to
people who are 'not active', but who have expressed interest in being
kept informed. We have another 200 who have asked to know when the books
are done, but don't want us to bother with news until then, and the 250
now being cut to 115 getting JL, all of whom expressed interest at some
time in more detailed info about the language, usually with intent to
learn it now or later. Some of the remaining 135 being cut are still
interested but cannot afford it, etc., so the new figure understates the
actual interest.
> You also state in LK that 66 people have requested subscriptions to
> JL, of which half are in arrears. Both these numbers are well under
> those claimed in your proposal to TLI. I also note that some 80
> people are on the Lojban net, of which all but a dozen or so are
> "lurkers". These numbers are not far different from TLI numbers. I
> note also that only 4 people (at least in one area) are capable of
> relatively fluent conversation on Lojban, and with only 3, you are
> incapable of sustaining a conversational learning group. Admittedly
> this may be 3 or 4 more that we could turn up in TLI, but the
> numbers are not impressive.
Our numbers are not overwhelming, I agree. But the people in our
top tier are a major notch ahead of most people in TLI. I consider it
quite likely that Cowan, myself, Nora, and probably Nick Nicholas in
Australia all know Loglan better than JCB ever did, and the first three
of us can even read and probably write TLI Loglan text without any
difficulty with a word list handy (Nora and I sometimes without; we are
still intermittently plagued by crossover words that we remember from our
TLI days, hence we actively work to avoid exposing ourself to TLI text,
which tends to cause corresponding Lojban errors for the next week or
two.)
> I haven't seen the latest LogFlash, but MacTeach, in both Mac and
> IBM versions has had automatic statistics gathering from the
> beginning, as well as the ability to accept alternatively correct
> English (and in E-L direction, Loglan expressions, such as for
> instance, redundant ga's, though there is no limit, except human
> ability to guess what correct alternatives might be used by the
> learner. TLI also has a good supply of printed books, is about to
> issue an on-line dictionary, and has a learning manual about
> complete.
We don't have the alternatively correct English, partly because we
know we can't guess the user's alternative choices. We allow the user to
change the English keywords for any word, but there must be a caution to
avoid ending up with a duplicate (we had to work hard to prevent
duplicates, or words that might mean to different Lojban words; e.g 'fly'
the insect and 'fly' the verb).
Since we don't have a grammar teacher, we haven't faced that problem
yet. As I said, I found MacTeach grammar teacher to be frustratingly
easy to break. Except for LogFlash, we are trying to move away from CAI
programs that rely on trying to guess what the user will answer.
> Financially, I would say that LLG seems to be in worse shape than
> TLI.
Again, mostly from the legal fees. Also, Nora and I are not nearly
as wealthy as JCB and cannot spend what he has lightly to make us
instantly in good shape. WE also far more rigidly keep our books
separate from our own finances (I recall that TLI finances work out of
JCB's register in his savings account, which is probably illegal as well
as making sure that TLI never truly is bankrupt as long as JCB isn't.)
The financial difficultires we mostly face came from trying to grow too
quickly and not insisting on payment from so many of the new people.
Science fiction fandom is noteworthy for always being broke and taking
advantage of people whp let them. We took a while to learn this. As we
prune our list, we will become much closer to being on a paying basis.
But remember also that in JL we put out a magazine much bigger than TLIs'
(about as much text as a paperback book each issue) while charging about
the same as TLI does.
> In the proposal I sent, TLI did not expect to receive any material
> assets from LLG, and, were the proposal accepted, naturally you
> would be obligated to offer refunds to members who had not yet
> received full value for their contribution. The business about
> turning over assets to TLI was a legalism, since I understand when a
> non-profit organization disbands, any residual assets must be turned
> over to another non-profit organization. The assets we would
> receive from LLG, were such a fusion to occur, would be its members
> that decided to stay on, a not inconsiderable asset.
At $25 per year for only Lognet, not many would stay on. In effect
TLI dues are pure donation, with Lognet being more comparable to LK than
JL in cost to produce - we consider it a loss leader (at 10% payment
rates, we have to), and it doesn't cost much. But we have only a few
dozen people who have donated an average of $25/year on top of the non-
profit publications. If we sold more stuff to make a profit (as we will
with the books), our assets would be much better, but then our sales
would be lower, as TLI's are.
> As for the Academy, whether one calls it that or not, it seems to me
> that Lojban does not poll its entire membership for deciding
> baseline change, and the very fact that there is a baselined Lojban
> presumes baseliners. In order to fulfil the aims stated for
> Loglan/Lojban, a controlled structure is necessary.
Agreed, more or less. We do on many issues in effect poll the whole
membership, but rather in the manner you did in the much decried prim
declensions. Our philosophy is the key difference. JCB considers the
academy to be a judiciary removed from the community (and has so stated -
I for example would never be qualified for the academy regardless of my
skill in the language because "I do not have a judicial temperament", (as
if he were competent to judge %^)). We consider the group reviewing a
change to be representative of the community, and indeed include as many
as is practical given the significance of the particular issue. Most
important, we DO NOT turn away anyone who asks to participate on an
issue. We rely on the recognition by the community that some people know
areas of the language better than others and are listened to, but that
confidence is something NEVER assumed or taken for granted. If people
think I'm wrong, I get outvoted (and it happens often) - my political
skill is that I know how often I can make a bad decision they must
overrule without having people stop believing in my ability, while on the
other hand, I know how to fight unimportant battles that I can and do
lose so that people know they CAN override me when I'm wrong, hence have
confidence that they still have ultimate power, while still having the
ability to carry the day when I think it truly important.
We both agree that stability is needed. That is why we have
baselines, which TLI does not have. But we also recognize that at some
point the language will and must pass out of our control. The metaphor
of the Academy suggests that of the French Academy which is respected by
the people at the same time it is ignored, but is decried by linguists
everywhere. We need a formal change mechanism, but it has to seem as in-
formal as possible to have the desired influence. Anything that smacks
of elitism is political death to our group.
> Your views on openness are probably shared by many on our side.
Good.
> I would welcome mutual discussion on the problem raised by Colin
> Fine, if, in fact it impacts on Loglan/Lojban grammar.
Cowan just posted that he thinks the problem was a misunderstanding
for the most part - he is going to investigate one possible change in the
priority of constructs within arguments (which would probably have a
parallel within TLI's grammar). We can keep you informed, and indeed at
some point, I will ship you the pending list of changes to the baselined
grammar I sent you, most of which are noise level tunings.
> I also think, if our languages go their separate ways, as may likely
> be the case, a mutual intertranslation project would still be
> worthwhile. Since some proposed applications presume some sort of
> Natural-language-Loglan mechanically-assisted translation, a first
> stage might well be a Lojban-Loglan, Loglan-Lojban translation,
> since both are stated to have unambiguous grammars, which differ in
> some important details.
This is true, but difficult to get funding for from outside, and
insufficiently interesting to people inside unless it stands to win
people over. In short, it would never rate enough priority to get
anywhere. Too many books to write.
> My suggestion about pitches to each others membership and voting
> presumed all JL and Lognet-receiving members could vote, i.e. those
> actually contributing to the language.
Good.