Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la .uuzìt. cu cusku di'e
> If you change even just one (!) gismu definition, you have to deal with
> these problems:
> - Ambiguity. People may wonder “Hmmm? Did person X mean ‘broda’ in the
> sense BEFORE or AFTER the gismu rewrite?”.

This is already happening both with gismu and with cmavo. Some people 
use a word one way, and others use it another way. Try to compare some 
texts and you will find conflicting usage. Old texts are also full of 
usage that is now considered incorrect, but reading them and knowing 
when they were written, we can easily understand why and don't need to 
be confused. As for gismu, lots of people for instance use {traji} 
without its old x3 place, lots of people use {mabla} with a new definition.

> - Even if people knew that, lojbanists basically may be split into two
> camps, the “before gismu rewrite” and the “after gismu rewrite” camp.

Already the case for cmavo and for several gismu. Consider Lojbab who 
refuses to use xorlo even though it's official.

> - The existing regular lujvo using this gismu may become irregular. A
> person may wonder “Huh? Where did that X place come from?”. The lujvo
> would still work, but remembering will be harder.

Regular lujvo will change automatically in usage and where needed the 
definitions can be updated in the dictionary.

> - This will likely invalidate many texts from before the change, since
> gismu are used so often in the language.

Yes, but it will not make the texts uninterpretable by any means, just 
like xorlo didn't. There are actually several changes that are part of 
the BPFK cmavo specification that invalidate large chunks of usage (e.g. 
ZAhO or VA). They reflect modern usage at the cost of making old texts 
awkward or simply incorrect. The changes still happened, and it's good 
that they did, because the new definitions are better. So where is the 
difference?

I may also add that whatever changes the BPFK or whatever other 
language-defining body makes to the language, I *will* update my 
writings to reflect that, and I've written some 60 thousand words. This 
is not the problem.

> I am not saying these problems are neccessarily unsolvable. But the
> proposal does not seem to address any of these problems.

Well, instead of shooting it down categorically, you could have asked 
for clarification. Afterall, this is supposed to be a joint effort.

> It would be nice if we just could change the gismu “for free”. But
> actually, the price of changing just one gismu is rather high. And you
> want to change ALL gismu if I understood correctly.

*Looking* at every gismu does not entail *changing* every gismu. All of 
this is in essence a democratic process, driven by the desires of the 
community. Nobody is going to change {dunda}, for example. There will be 
no changes made just for the sake of changing things.

There is a non-negligible number of people who support the revision and 
who are going to take part. Maybe they are going to speak up themselves.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--
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.