Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m3o@plasmatix.com> wrote:

On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

selpa'i wrote:

That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.

If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those members who care will vote, those members who do not care will abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing.

The members who are allowed to vote are not as active in the community as they used to be and new active members now exist who aren't allowed to vote even though I'd say their opinion should matter. That's why I don't think the (current) BPFK can still be justifiably given the status you want it to have.

There's no such thing as a member of the BPFK that can't vote. IFF you're in the BPFK, you can vote.

Not active is not dead.

What's the practical difference between eternal coma and death? You're not gonna get much done either way.

The practical difference is that the BPFK doesn't need to be replaced by a new body. It's not active because nothing other than language documentation is /allowed/ to be done until the language documentation is completed. And replacement body would have the exact same problem, because the primary purpose of any replacement body would be language documentation.

In short, get the language documentation done, and then we can discuss the other duties of the BPFK or any replacement thereof, until then, no matter what body we have, it's going to be just as inactive as it is now, regardless of what it's called or who's on it.

There's nothing for the BPFK to do as long as the language freeze exists beyond doing that which is required to lift the freeze- documenting the language as is. The fact that documenting the language is dull and dreary grunt work that quickly makes anyone who is doing desire to do something else

Hmm... it sounds like a lot of fun to me.

And to the rest of the Lojban community as well, which is why Lindar is not the person who did most of the work on documentation since the last checkpoint and there's currently 50,000 people each working on it. </sarcasm>

, and that therefore no one, BPFK member or not, is working on it, does not make the BPFK dead.

The problem I see is the phrase "the language as is". If anything, it should be "the langauge as was", since nobody is still using all the old definitions. I see little use in defining a given CLL cmavo when it's so obvious that the cmavo already has taken on a new meaning. It's just such a waste of time and energy.
However, defining the language as it is actually currently being used (or how people want it to be used); *that*, to me, seems a fun task, and much more worthwhile.

That happens to be exactly what is supposed to be getting done. Let me quote from the instructions page:

Grab your CLL, or use one of the online versions. Figure out what the cmavo means. Write it down. See the templates below.

...

Find (or, if you really can't find any, make) examples of usage of the cmavo; use the Corpora page for this.
Search the mailing list, or anything else that seems relevant, for debate about the nature of the cmavo or its category. Make notes of any you find, seperate from the body of the definition. (This would include changes in usage or accepted meaning.)

At any stage along the way, if you see any problem (contradictions, arguments, confusions, whatever) about either the cmavo itself or the general category it belongs to, make sure they are noted down, either in the Issues section for the cmavo or the Issues section (make one if necessary) for the whole page.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )