[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Massive irony (Everson, please read) (was Re: [lojban] BPFK Announcement: Orthography)
Arnt made me not post this the day of, because he refused to believe
me because it was April First; he basically accused me of lying.
Whilst working on this, whole process took a while, because I had to
go over it several times to make sure I had hit everything. During
that process something very interesting happened: it started being
really easy to read. It reminded me, strongly, of
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/16/493452.aspx
This dovetailed with a nagging feeling I had been having that I was
sticking to the way I was used to things because I'm used to them.
So, ironically, working on this made me much more receptive to
Everson's plans.
I *still* think ". I" looks like cat barf, but I think that's just
me being conservative, so I'm going to be less of a dick about it.
-Robin
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 09:52:52AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> Pursuant to the recent discussion, the BPFK has been meeting to
> decide what to do about declaring a very specific, offical Lojban
> orthography that includes the best of various proposals extant, a
> standard of marking stress that everyone can agree on, and the
> flexibility to deal with alternative modes of typography in Latin
> script.
>
> To that end, we've settled on the following general principles. See
> below for a specific example (using the Alice translation,
> naturally).
>
> 1. It has always been a founding principle of Lojban that it should
> be easy to use with computers (this is what the ASCII convention was
> about). Taking this further leads to two minor changes:
>
> a. A new set of letters for marking stress has been chosen, that
> is at least as easy to use as capitals, but leaves capitals free
> for other orthographic uses without conflict. For the most part,
> these letters were taken from current standard internet practice,
> however stressed "u" and "y" have no such standard, so they were
> picked to resemble similar practice, but have no weight of long
> use to back them up, unfortunately.
>
> b. The letter ' is now deprecated, since it routinely
> upsets computers (try dealing with a file named "lo'i.mp3" in a
> shell script some time).
>
> 2. While periods are preferred, it is always allowed to drop
> periods, as before, but if you do so, it is preferred that you
> replace the following letter with its capital form, to enhance
> visual distinctiveness. For cases where a period has been dropped,
> and the next letter is a stress letter, it's preferred to use both,
> marking the text in some way to indicate that both are intended to
> occupy the same space. Details of this markup are left to usage to
> decide.
>
> 3. It is preferred to always mark stress, especially since we have
> a much more convenient way to do so now; why leave out information
> if you don't have to? This includes cmavo.
>
> 4. Compound cmavo are no longer allowed, at all. Their use will
> result in several large men arriving at your house in an unmarked
> black car.
>
> 5. For obvious reasons, using numerals for "p4", "r3", "c1", and so
> on is deprecated.
>
> Here's an example of a not-totally-standard (because it drops
> periods), but perfectly valid, text under the new proposal:
>
> p4 m0ho m0hi n1ha l3 r4ctu k3vna
> ================================
>
> N1ho l4 (4|A)lis c0ha t4tpi l3 n_ z_tse l3 r1rxe k0rbi r3ho l3
> m3nsi g1he z_kte f1 n0d4 (1|I) (4|A) b_ b01 p4 j1hi r3 r01 s_tra
> zg4na g1he z_kte f1 n0 d4 (1|I) (4|A) b_ b01 s_ho r01 s_tra zg4na
> l3 c_kta p01 l3 m3nsi c_ tc1du (1|I) k_hi c/ v4sru n0 p1xra j4
> nunc4snu (1|I) l_ j1ha m4 pr4li s31 l4 (4|A)lis p3nsi f1 l0 c_kta
> p0i v4sru n0 p1xra j4 nunc4snu l1hu
>
> (1|I) (4|A) b_ c4ho m3nli jd1ce t0 s3 k41 l3 x4grai selk4he p3
> v4ho l3 n_ l3 gl4re dj3di c_ r1nka l3 n_ (4|A) b_ l1fri l3 n_
> s1pydji j3 b3bna t01 l3 d_hu x_ k4_ l3 n_ pl_ka f4 l3 n_ zb4su l0
> xr_la l1nsi c_ s3 v4mji l3 r4ktu p01 n_ sahirb1ho g1he cr3pu l31
> xr_la (1|I) c4 b0 s_ksa f4 l3 n_ l0 bl4bi r4ctu p01 xunbl4bi s3
> k4nla c_ b4jra z0ha (4|A) b_
>
> You're welcome to talk amongst yourselves, of course, but this is
> already a done deal; the BPFK has spoken, this is now official, and
> the BPFK has a majority in the LLG, so you pretty much get to suck
> it up.
>
> -Robin
>
> --
> OMFG am I not actually speaking for the BPFK here. Note the date.
> No offense to anyone, including Everson and xorxes, is intended.
> kthxbye
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
--
They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.