On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 18:40, 白松 Oren
<baisong@gvbchina.org.cn> wrote:
I like the idea of versioning[1]. And I like the idea of the BPFK
being like the WC3, providing authoritative standards.
However, I don't think it's in our best interest to distance the
layman reformer or the linguistic idealist. I think it's a shame to
hear that some people interested in contributing to Lojban, even
'oldbies,' haven't been active in the community because they fall into
one of these groups. I think an executive power granted to the BPFK
solves the dilemma of the layman reformer-- if the suggestion passes
the four-part-tie-breaker, it becomes an official recommendation. But
for the idealists, what if in addition to versioned Lojban, we had an
LLG-sanctioned space for discussion of significantly-revisionist[2]
schemes? That is:
"The Logical Language Group oversees the development, standardization
and usage of logical languages.
Currently, Lojban V4 is a standardized, robust realization of a
logical language, with an active community of learners and users, and
an ever-growing body of literature. The BPFK group maintains
standards, with new suggestions and experiments occasionally becoming
official recommendations. Those interested in learning to speak (and
maybe think!) as clearly as humanly possible, ko tadni!
Additionally, LoCCan is a space for unregulated development of a
logical language with similar goals, but without adherence to Lojban
V4 grammar or vocabulary. Those interested in exploring alternative
logical language possibilities, come here!"
...pei
co'o mi'e korbi
[1]
(From the essay,
http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban:+You're+Doing+It+Wrong)
lu
I propose a cmavo for language version, that takes a single number for
the version; just a simple incrementing whole number. I suggest 1 for
Loglan, 2 for pre-rafsi reallocation Lojban, 3 for pre-xorlo Lojban, 4
for current Lojban.
li'u
[2]
(from an earlier post, And Rosta)
lu
A. Your #1 and #2 goals were paramount: the language should be
capable of expressing desired meanings unambiguously, and without
so much effort that the cost of the effort outweighs the benefit
of the clarity of _expression_. B. It would be a real benefit for
the world for this language to exist and seriously be usable for
real-world stuff (such as legislative language). C. To create the
language you'd need a team -- too much work for one person, and
the job would need many eyes. D. With the benefit of hindsight,
and learning from the Lojban experience, the best way to achieve
(A) would be to start from scratch. (Lojban grammar is needlessly
complicated, and the design of its grammar and of its morphology
makes it impossible to get it down to an acceptable level of
conciseness.)
li'u
--
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.