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

Herein is the crux. What is Lojban? It is surely not the language off CLL or much like it; it is not that modified by xorlo (any of the dozen or so xorlos, not counting those by xorxes himself). Honesty would have it extracted from all the text around, assuming that could be collected, but that is probably not a consistent corpus and certainly would not meet the requirements of being a loglang. Even the corpus of one Lojbanist is somewhat iffy. You have two choices: a new presecriptivism, which decides all issues and lays down the law in a tight program, (OK, three -- we could go back to CLL) or a free-for-all building to a new consensus and eventual formalization.
(In either case, {PA lo broda} is not the same as {PA broda}.)

From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

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.

Not active is not dead.

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

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 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.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.