Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update

2014-05-24 6:51 GMT+04:00 Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>:

On 5/22/2014 4:50 PM, Dustin Lacewell wrote:

You can view the result of this approach in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI

We implore you to carefully review the progression of discourse and
consider for
yourself what may be concluded from the positions put forth there. The
outcome
is not much different than what we expected when we submitted the original
message, at least in terms of pushback. The amount of explicit support and
advocacy was incredibly encouraging and reaffirming.

You seem to have rather low standard for "encouraging and reaffirming".

The Lojban community numbers in the several hundreds if not thousands.

Maybe 1000 copies of CLL have been sold. People who bought it expect that the language will not lightly be changed under them.

You and your few others (relative to that 1000) of course do not respect that, which is your choice.

This certainly shows disrespect for CLL. But what's really interesting is how did xorlo proposals pass then? Was it a lost battle to you?

xorlo invalidates large portions of CLL thus suggesting that those 1000 copies of CLL are to be burned.

Do you have a solution to this problem? Because I feel that xorlo was de facto a mistake (at least partially).

Shall we adapt xorlo to what is described in CLL?

My position requires me to oppose yours, and to consider your efforts schismatic.

They would certainly be schismatic if they invalidate many things described in CLL.

However, for now we don't know what they are suggesting since their work hasn't even started.

I revised gimste myself injecting gua\spi style specifications of sumti interactions and found very few problems in gimste. So I can't even imagine what they are suggesting. Probably they don't know themselves.

Anyway, how can it be schismatic if the only reliable source for a dictionary are definitions that we can learn from CLL?

Is there another official source apart from CLL? If yes then why wasn't it printed?

-----

For the other query in this thread: perhaps LLG is unnecessary as an organization, but if Lojban is ever to become something other than a word-of-mouth hobby, it needs an business organization in any relevant political entity capable of dealing with laws, and finance, and business matters. LLG is a nonprofit that can accept financial contributions (in the USA) that are tax-deductible. That is why we had the money to publish CLL in the first place. And why we can eventually hope to publish a dictionary and other books, and sell them internationally.

Esperanto and all other significant language projects have one or more organizations in several countries.

Of course maybe you and your friends are happy with Internet-only materials. I'm an old fossil by your standards. And perhaps when I no longer have the capability of participating, others will decide to fold LLG.

lojbab

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.