On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:06:09PM -0500, Adam Lopresto wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Question:
> >
> > Is it your intention to fork off of Lojban? If so, what do you believe
> > fracturing the speech community will accomplish? If not, why are you
> > making no apparent effort to make this any kind of official project?
Ever tried to talk to a wall? How about twice+? .u'iru'e .uinai
The official answer of the LLG is pretty much clear even before talking
about it...
Although pretty much besides the point in this case, I agree.
Changing the place structure of irregular gismu has nothing to do with
e.g. the specifications for termset cmavo.
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com>
> > > We have considered how to approach the community
> > > regarding this agenda and the conclusion was to formally approach the
> > > mailing-list, Facebook and IRC communities regarding the status-quo
> > > regarding the policies related to lojban's maintenance.
> > >
> > > You can view the result of this approach in this thread:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI
This entire thread never refers to either the gimste or irregular gismu
_at all_. I see no sense in referring to it here.
> > > The suggestions provided for removing that gridlock have been,
> > > to be clear, deemed unreasonable and not worth their weight in practical
> > > value.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > Be certain that we have *heard* these outlines for how we should be spending
> > > our efforts, considered them, and decided we have no intention of carrying
> > > out such tautological efforts as prerequisites to our own.
> > >
> > > To speak plainly, we simply are not interested.
> > > We have far more practical things to do that are directly
> > > related to dealing with making the lojbanic prescription more immediately
> > > reflective of modern lojban for the benefit of its current speakers and
> > > the sensibilities of those finding the language for the first time, every
> > > day.
I see why you consider irregular gismu "more practical" than completing the byfy.
Yet, I politely disagree when you say that finishing
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Contact+Spatial
and
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Termsets
is not practical at all and tries to define a 10-year old language.
I'm pretty sure you use {bu'u} and {ne'i} in your "practical" language.
Do you agree with the definitions given? Is this the way you use these words
and want them to be used?
What about {ce'e} and {pe'e}? Surely they are less commonly used, but nevertheless
they could appear in regular discussions. Are their definitions reasonable?
If all of these words _are_ the way you want them to be, then the byfy or,
given that selpa'i considers them to be dead, anyone Robin considers knowledgeable
enough, can officially vote for the acceptance of all the sections.
This would leave some rather formal things to be done. See
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+To-Do
Apart from xorxes' many grammar simplifications,
these things look pretty much ready for voting to me..
Some of these already, however, already started year-long discussions...
> > > The first of those efforts is the aforementioned revision of the gimste.
The only real problem I have with this whole endeavour, as you described it
so far, is the "The first of those efforts"-part. What comes after?
v4hn
Attachment:
pgp_C1aGEuXog.pgp
Description: PGP signature