[no subject]

[lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)]

part 1 - explanation of change proposal package and relative clause proposal

The relative clause change I am proposing in response to Colin's paper
and ensuing discussion will be found as Changes 20 and 21 in the
proposed baseline changes, which are being sent in a separate message
as a package.  It is my opinion that analyzing the grammar in terms
of the current baseline is risky, since a change of this magnitude might
have unseen cross-effects with other proposed changes.

I am thus sending in separate messages to Veijo, Nick, Colin, Iain, and
Mark Shoulson the current state of the draft BNF and YACC grammars
incorporating all of the changes.  These are draft, and may face more
extensive modifications especially in comments, before publication.  The
YACC grammar is more than 64K, and I am breaking it into <16K pieces.
To make procedures simple, I am declaring this the convening of the
baseline review committee to review the .300 baseline proposal and make
recommendations to the voting membership which will probably give some
sort of indicative vote at LogFest.

I am also sending a copy to Bob McIvor of TLI for his review and comment
in our desire to establish peace and to evolve the two Loglan versions
closer together.  Cowan, Nora and Sylvia are also included in the
baseline review committee on this issue. pc and possibly Ivan will have
a chance to comment before a decision is final on the baseline changes.

The relative clause proposal (zu'o)

A change of this magnitude is VERY controversial.  Cowan and I were
originally opposed, as we originally opposed the nai/nei negation
proposal of two months ago, primarily on the basis that the language
design is too firmly baselined to permit such a degree of fiddling, and
the possible unforeseen side effects of this change are enormous.

That earlier nai/nei proposal split very similarly in the vote, with
Colin and a few others basically arguing that if the language has an
irregularity, it is still permissible to change it because not all that
many have learned the language to a point where it would hurt them to
relearn.  In that case, Nick sided against the proposal, as did Nora,
who in particular sees herself as guardian of language stability, since
she knows how many people were driven off by similar attempts to stick
one more necessary improvement after another in old Loglan in the 1970s
and early 1980s.  The cost of continued change is not only relearning,
but a reluctance of new people to try to learn a language that they
MIGHT have to relearn.

Cowan, who has been a great proposer of minor changes in the last two
years, almost all of which were adopted, has finally come to understand
the third problem:  if the language is ever to be documented, it must
stop changing.  The mere existence and serious consideration of this
proposal has stopped his work on the sumti paper dead, and its adoption
will force a totally redesign of that paper, not to mention changes to a
lot of documentation already completed.

It also affects the ongoing DC class - I have to decide which version of
relative clauses to teach by next Tuesday, since this change affects the
way I teach them.  My experience in teaching has shown that I will lose
or confuse some students if I present the issue as other-than-firmly
decided; I will not risk this.  Thus, I must have a tentative consensus
by then, which I will likely force through some decision "for the sake
of the language" unless someone finds a major flaw.

All of these comments are thus set forth as a warning - that while we
want to make the language right and it is worthwhile finding such
problems, proposals alike this are stressful to the project, the design
team that is trying to finsih the project, the language and the
community, and thus are decidedly unwelcome.  This doesn't mean that
questions should not be raised - I hope people will do so, but the
expectation MUST be that most such problems as are identified from here
on out will be merely documented as problems, with no change to the
language.

Thus I give a very mixed thanks to Colin for raising the issue.  If not
for his long Loglandic experience and demonstrated skill in Lojban, his
arguments would likely have been ignored, and it is thus useful when
someone like him risks substantial credibility to identify a problem
they think must be solved.  But I hope he isn't looking similarly at
other areas of the language, because frankly, another problem of this
magnitude might cause me to delay the books one more time to give Colin
and Iain and Veijo a chance for one more review of the whole language.
I will not publish with a low confidence level in the stability of the
grammar baseline, since it looks like I will be stuck financing book
publication given our finances and cannot afford to take a significant
loss, as would likely result if the book does not have an useful
lifetime substantially greater than a year.  Furthermore, as Cowan
noted, writing the books is twice as hard when we don't have confidence
that we are writing "for keeps".  For various reasons including my
forthcoming parentage and our again perilous finances, further delays
might be fatal to the project, not to mention our ability to claim that
the language has been stabilized through the baseline system.

Now - enough griping - on to solutions - in part 2