[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative

On 9/16/2014 4:55 PM, TR NS wrote:

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:29:34 PM UTC-4, lojbab wrote:


    No. CLL 1.1 is NOT intended to sit around for a decade, but to serve as
    the basis for discussing the proposals that people want considered.  If
    those proposals are well-documented, I could imagine CLL 1.1 be
    replaced
    by CLL 2.0 within a couple of years at most.


I wonder how you can say that. Didn't you say much the same thing 12
years ago?
The key clause there is "If those proposals are well-documented". The 12 years has been because we have been trying to add documentation that did not exist before, and indeed to answer questions that had not been asked before, (and the original CLL was not designed to be editable in the desired way, which Robin is taking care of now).
If the proposals are documented, to include proposed change pages to CLL, then pretty much as soon as a decision is made, the change can be incorporated into CLL, essentially immediately. (Most likely we would try to decide most or all issues before incorporating, but that should be relatively quick as well.) 


And he we are still waiting for a dictionary?
The dictionary remains a problem, unless someone comes up with something publishable out of jbovlaste. However, I suspect that when the current byfy work is done, key people will feel more able and willing to tackle that task.
(I should note that my original goal/concept for a dictionary is considerably different from what has evolved in jbovlaste, but since I am not doing the work, I don't expect to have much say.) 


It seems like a
very unrealistic expectation. Of course, if you're simply planning to
rubber stamp 1.1 as 2.0 with a few minor adjustments then I guess it
could be true.
I don't know what-all changes have been proposed, since I went out of my way to ignore them for the last several years. 


    Probably true.  It's also likely that such an effort would not be
    considered enough like Loglan/Lojban to warrant calling them a
    "derivation".  English is after all a derivation of Indo-European, and
    more recently Old English, but relatively few people care to learn
    anything about those predecessors.

It's all a matter of degree and you can draw the line where you like, of
course. One could also argue the same about Lojban vs Loglan since the
vocabularies are completely different.
Lojban isn't a derivation of Loglan. Lojban IS Loglan, by decree of the LLG membership about 20 years ago %^). But the TLI people never completely went away, and thus presumably contest the claim. 


Btw, did you hear that Loglan got rid of `x`?
I am subscribed to the TLI Loglan list, but seldom read the substance. I have some interaction with the President of TLI, but we don't talk about changes.
Unfortunately, they have the same problem we do: they can vote for such a change to their language, but until the change is published in a new edition of Loglan 1, most of their audience won't know of such changes, much less accept them. 

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.