Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative

2014-09-15 22:44 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:

2014-09-15 22:22 GMT+04:00 TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>:

On Monday, September 15, 2014 12:32:38 PM UTC-4, And Rosta wrote:
Would this be an initiative to complete the Lojban design, much as Lojban itself was an initiative to bring Loglan into a stable and public domain form? Or would it be an initiative to create the best possible loglang? These would be completely different initiatives but to each initiative some bits of your message seem to pertain.

Something in between. On the one hand we're not starting out with Lojban (or Loglan) as the mainline language, but instead creating a synthesis, while also reconsidering the choices made by these languages at each step in the process. Although it will likely differ in many respects, it is still very much an child of Loglan/Lojban, not an attempt to create an wholly new logical language.

If it's an initiative to complete the Lojban design, probably what's required is someone to document the completions that xorxes and selpa'i would recommend -- maybe an informal document for others to check over the recommendations, and then, if one were wanted, a formal CLL-like document. It seems a shame to declare a fork, and rename the language, before forking and renaming has been shown to really be necessary.

I don't see how a fork can be avoided. I think it's become very clear that Lojban, pretty much as it is presently documented, is how the language is going to stay. The persons in charge give some service to change by "usage" and potential consideration of proposals after full documentation of the current language is complete. But how many decades are we to wait for that to happen?

It is not going to stay in this state because there are people that are working on it.
Robin is working on a new CLL, I'm working on a new dictionary, a new tutorial and on Lojban Expertise Test.

If this is the only reason you want a new language I can only suggest that you join existing projects in Lojban.

Loglan is mostly broken. E.g. it doesnt have mekso.

I'm surprised at the reaction to these words from some residents.

Does Loglan have mekso?

I got this information from the cefli in 2013. It didn't have. Neither in the parser.

May be by some magic Loglan got mekso in 2014?

As for the dictionary most of its lujvo are in fact cimjvo.

This is also true. Just look at the prims compound words are made of.

You can take Core wordnet and translate it instead.

There is no way Loglan can be united with Lojban because there is almost nothing to take from Loglan that would pose any interest from Lojbanic point of view.

And can it actually ever be complete? And doesn't the whole notion of "completion" work against the notion of change?

It doesn't. Describing a language in more details doesnt necessarily invalidate old usage.

But as for xorlo I dont like it not because of grammatical or semantical reasons but because of paedagogical reasons when a change wasn't confirmed in fundamental documents.

Other than that I can't see any problems in Lojban except that many people seem to be lazy. We'll have to deal with that.

There've been other attempts to create forks of loglangs like reviving guaspi community or xorban.
There've been voksigid and lojsk.
All these projects died.

I think mostly due to the same reasons: the lack of tutorials, a reference grammar as complete as CLL and a rich dictionary.
And of course compared to Lojban they provided no immediate advantages. And no corpus of texts.

Documenting the completions that xorxes and selpa'i would recommend is a good idea, but it's clear to me it would not change much here.

How's that? This is the goal of this community.

I'd like to see these proposals posted to the Logla issues board where they will be definitely have an effect.

Besides, starting a new project also allows us to take a step back and reconsider things that would simply not be possible otherwise.

If it's an initiative to create the best possible loglang, I suggest initiating discussion on the Engelang list (still on Yahoogroups). My views on loglangs, which would be better discussed on Engelang than here, are that an obstacle to progress is that nobody has discovered a good enough design, and the solution to this, if one exists at all, is to discuss the problems and slowly turn them over in our minds, as with any not very tractable problem; it's not a problem that can be solved just by people rolling up their sleeves and trying to get stuff done. But the design is modularizable, and some modules, such as the list of keyest predicates, could be worked on separately. Slightly better documentation of the state of the art, e.g. Xorban, would be nice, too.

It is a project to create a better human language that is very "loglang". But not a project to create a better "loglan" for the sake of logicians. I hope that makes sense. We will do are best to take as much as we can into consideration and go from there. But it's not a issue of letting the "perfect be then enemy of the good". We'll take the good.

I will bring it up on Engelang too. Thanks.

--
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.