[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation?
la gleki wrote:
ta'onaisai can you please explain how gimste was formed? Is it based on
english semantics?
Who and how selected sumti places? Was there anybody who looked at e.g.
Chinese semantics and imported concepts from there?
Not this week. Maybe after the 25th anniversary LogFest.
and a comparative reference grammar that discusses several dozen
languages in more or less the same format of 10-50 page essays.
I did a study of lexicography in the 1990s to learn how to write a
proper dictionary.
> But this is something that must be discussed further.
NOTHING "must" be discussed further.
Things must be DONE, not "discussed". Discussion is the enemy of
getting things done.
And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to habitually do,
makes paying attention to your proposals antithetical to getting things
done.
If you mean helping with CLL 1.1 i already expressed my opinion.
I have no particular reason to care about your opinion.
I was referring mostly to two threads you have initiated in the past
week, one proposing a complete change in the organization's priorities
for documentation when you clearly don't know what those priorities are
and why they were chosen. The other is the one with subject line:
Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.
to which you made no less than 7 posts on a topic that clearly sounds
like a change proposal without waiting for anyone else to respond. And
you invoke idiosyncrasies of TLI Loglan, guaspi and Ithkuil, as if they
have some relevance to Lojban. They don't.
No one is stopping you from writing Lojban with all manner of
idiosyncratic experimental cmavo derived from all sorts of weird
sources. But I won't understand such Lojban, and I won't even try, if I
am running into a lot of experimental stuff. Meanwhile, experimental
stuff is just that - experimental. It will not be included in the
formal documentation of the language, either 1.1 or 2.0, and probably
not in any teaching materials, either.
As for rewriting cmavo definitions i dont understand how I can help.
If you don't understand, then probably you cannot help. No one has time
to figure out how to enable others to help. The current situation,
alas, is one in which one single person has to do a lot of work and
serves as a bottleneck until they have time to get done. But all other
approaches that we've tried have failed, because people with limited
time are more interested in discussing than in doing.
Do you wish i presented a ma'oste with new definitions?
No.
what would it change?
everyone would ignore it.
I hope so.
I don't want any change to the cmavo list.
The concept of our baselines is that things DON'T change without a good
reason, and eventually that only changes will be officially adopted
after seeing lots of people actually use them in fluent conversation or
text, rather than talking about them as proposals for fiat change. If
your change is sufficiently non-evolutionary that it cannot be
introduced by usage without explanation (or maybe with minimal
explanation entirely in Lojban), it probably won't catch on.
lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
--
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.