2015-12-20 14:45 GMT+03:00 guskant
<gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 11:12:28 UTC, la gleki a écrit :2015-12-20 13:55 GMT+03:00
<jacfold...@gmail.com>:
Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 10:13:29 UTC, la gleki a écrit :2015-12-20 12:32 GMT+03:00 guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com>:
Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 08:57:23 UTC, la gleki a écrit :
I'm intolerant to everything beyond CLL. Even my unofficial parsers are merely a playtoy, a tool to study Lojban, not to break it.
Changing Lojban is breaking its community which already happened once in 2004.
It's a pity that the current Lojban is probably irreversibly incompatible with CLL, I only have to accept that and perceive as if the language is starting from scratch. But I of course can't accept if this is going to happen on a regular basis. That's why my intolerance over even more backward incompatible changes.
Teaching {la'oi} in your course and abusing a statement in NU clause: what a double standard of you! It's you who broke so-called Lojbanistan by expelling me.
1. I didn't expel you. I'm just documenting what people are using. As I said I perceive the situation as starting the language from scratch. But when some person says "let's drop this usage" it's breaking communication.
You did. See the proof in the page of URL above.
I don't understand that page, sorry. At all :( Don't understand reasoning, just nothing. You may try discussing it with other people.
2. Am I supposed not to teach {la'oi}? Then how one would understand what this {la'oi} means?
Simply teach that it's not Lojban. Even doing it, the learner will find it in jbovlaste, and understand the usage.
Definition in jbovlaste are usually cryptic and the website currently lacks satisfactory tools to show examples.
Maybe instead add a notice that {la'oi} is ... I don't know what adjective to use so that it can suit you. "not mainstream", "used by some people"? The section already has the section "usage is problematic".
Also I not precisely explained how my course is to be used. So I clarified the very first paragraph explaining the algorithm of using the course. To use one is supposed to provide feedback. Other usage is not approved.
I understand that readers in past could understand this course as a still finalized book despite warnings that it was a draft.
It's rather desirable that definition in jbovlaste is cryptic, and the examples are not very reachable. New learners would avoid using {la'oi}, or supporters of {la'oi} would give a learnable non-official page of {la'oi}. Both are out of teacher's mission.
So I'll then add it to the dictionary in the appendix.
3. People are using {la'oi}. I don't understand how {la'oi} breaks CLL. This particle is backward compatible. What problems are you having with it? I can only see that for you {la'oi} is not neutral towards Polynesian languages. But we already know that Lojban is not neutral. Why are you accusing me of teaching it? The little blame gets all the blame? The same as before. If one does nothing 'ey can't be blaimed. Is this what is desired?
It breaks CLL 1.1 by forcing learners cultural non-neutrality. As for the correctness of CLL, use bpfk list:
4. I don't understand what does mean "abusing a statement in NU clause"? Using {nu} where {du'u} is to be used? It's from xorxe's Alice. If there is some underformalization going on I don't have time to resolve it when everything is working anyways.
No, I simply meant syntactic form "NU statement (KEI)", which require some KEI non-elidible more than camxes. You abused also my parser parses differently from camxes as follows:
([{ro BOI} {mo <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI>} KU] VAU)
([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {cu <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI> VAU}] IAU)
([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {ge <cu (¹mo VAU¹)> <gi (¹CU [mo VAU]¹)> GIhI}] IAU)
You did then said "ja'o lo guskanbau cu banzu frica lo jbobau", which implies that you expelled me from so-called Lojbanistan.
Oh, hm. Now I see. But that reasoning also implies that I expelled myself too .o'u.
You don't understand the proof. You speak IRC dialects, then it does not imply that you expelled yourself.
I mean I wrote parsers with the grammar different from the one in the CLL appendix.
Why don't you follow a primary course of Logic before teaching Lojban?
The same reason why I, not more proficient people worked on
mw.lojban.org wiki from the beginning.
Because no one else simply volunteers.
You didn't mention that your parser for your course "camxes-exp" parses cmevla as tanru unit: it is already backward incompatible to camxes. It is another evidence of your double standard.
Indeed, it's a mistake to be corrected. I will change to a better parser in future but currently I lack free time. It's not double standard. I simply can't do the work for everyone.
I also wish you sent feedback directly to me as the course asks, not collect some evidence as my own opinion.
I'm only a collector and a teacher, not a designer of languages.
You are also an expeller of me and a de-selector of un-pleasant-to-you features.
I can't comment on this. I don't know what you are talking about.
As before, if you think a project isn't moving forward you are free to start your own project.
Provide alternatives!
I recommend you not to teach any new features before admitted by BPFK. Don't collect the unofficial features but obey BPFK. It is reasonable if you add new features after admission of BPFK.
ok