On Monday, September 22, 2014 12:51:45 AM UTC-4, la xirsoi wrote:
I think the clear issue here is that you are forking the language in part because you are frustrated at a lack of progress. But the lack of progress is due to a lack of people willing to do the work.
Fragmentation will not suddenly create more people willing to do the work.
That's only about 25% true. I think is a bit of a red haring to hold up progress on the basis of getting the current state "fully documented" (whatever that means exactly). Isn't it a rather huge waste of effort to fully document something if the writing is on the wall that it's going to change? Perhaps if there were more man-power around it would be fine. But then, the "work" would be done already too. I should also point out, that progress partly entails ways to simplify things. When we do that, there's less work to be done.
I also don't think lojbab is really interested in much "progress". I think his heart is set on the language as is, which is why we have all this heavy stipulation of completion of documentation before any progress can be considered. The only changes that seem to be acceptable (with a few minor exceptions) are those of usage. But real usage changes take many speakers and many years to pan out. It is not my intention to speak for lojbab, of course, I am just saying what I gather out of the many things he has said.
Lastly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I think there are more fundamental aspects of the language that need to be reconsidered. There is simply no room for that with Lojban.
And let me say again, this is not an either-or proposition. You can be a speaker and supporter of Lojban and participate in the development of Logla Prime. The later is mostly a matter of simple discussion at this point and for some time to come. It's not going to take much away from "work" on Lojban.