Hi!
The poll's closed.
18 people have participated. Big thanks to each of them.
Now, here are the results:
I. Are you comfortable with using OL (Official Lojban)?
(Not at all)
1: == 2
2: ==== 4
3: ===== 5
4: ===== 5
5: == 2
(Totally)
Average:
3.06
Median:
3
As we can see, OL is an only somewhat natural loglang.
II. Do you think that OL is complete, mature?
(It really lacks)
1: == 2
2: ====== 6
3: ==== 4
4: ====== 6
5: 0
(It's complete)
Average: 2.78
Median: 3
Notice that no-one has voted it's complete!
III. If you were to write something in Lojban, how close to OL would it be?
1: = 1
2: ====== 6
3: == 2
4: ======= 7
5: == 2
Average: 3.17
Median: 3.5
Looks like OL isn't the exact choice — only 2 out of 18 decided they'd "go for it.
IV. Which of these languages are Lojban to you? (multiple choice)
===============+++ 15 CLL Lojban
==============++++ 14 BPFK Lojban (OL)
============++++++ 12 IRC Lojban
============++++++ 12 zantufa Lojban
===========+++++++ 11 la oz Lojban
++++++++++++++++++ 00 Loglan
Apparently, CLL Lojban is more of a Lojban that OL, and Loglan got no credit.
Let's look at IV from a different perspective:
===========+++++++ 11 all of BPFK, CLL, IRC, zantufa and Oz of which
========~~~ 8 choose just that
~~~~~~~~=~~ 1 adds CeKiTauJau dialects
~~~~~~~~~=~ 1 adds xorxes' experimental parser's Lojban
~~~~~~~~~~= 1 adds all dialects "sufficiently intelligible for Lojbanists" (incl. CeKiTauJau)
+++++++++++=++++++ 1 CLL, BPFK, IRC
++++++++++++=+++++ 1 CLL, BPFK
+++++++++++++==+++ 2 only CLL
+++++++++++++++=++ 1 only BPFK
++++++++++++++++=+ 1 only zantufa
+++++++++++++++++= 1 only his idiolect
(An idiolect is a dialect of a language spoken by one specific person.)
In other words, most allow all of the Lojbans out there!
V. Which model of approving changes to OL is the most appropriate in your opinion?
=========+++++++++ 9 A commitee/board decides
+++++++++=======++ 7 The community votes
++++++++++++++++== 2 No idea
++++++++++++++++++ 0 One person approves
As you can see, a commitee is the most popular choice (though it isn't a majority), and a voting approach is the runner-up.
VI. Do you think that the current model will lead to forking of the language?
(It won't)
1: 0
2: ==== 4
3: ====== 6
4: ===== 5
5: === 3
(It will inevitably)
Average: 3.39
Median: 3
No one thinks the language won't fork, so that means something, doesn't it.
VII. Do you think that the model you deem as the most appropriate will lead to such forking?
1: == 2
2: ========= 9
3: ==== 4
4: = 1
5: == 2
Average: 2.56
Median: 2
VIII. Do you think "tinkering" is a positive or negative term?
(Negative)
1: = 1
2: === 3
3: ==== 4
4: ======= 7
5: === 3
(Positive)
Average: 3.44
Median: 4
Good it's positive.
IX. Specific proposals...
The numbers (and graphs) show the no of approvals, don't-knows and disapprovals. If the number is bold, the majority approves of that grammatical feature.
12 5 1 ++++++++++++~~~~~= Connective system reform
11 6 1 +++++++++++~~~~~~= {voi}/{poi'i}
10 5 3 ++++++++++~~~~~=== cekitaujau (swapping frequent long words with less frequent shorter ones)
1 14 3 +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=== GA BO and GA with 3+ args
8 10 0 ++++++++~~~~~~~~~~ {xoi}/{noi'a} family (adverbial clauses)
09 6 3 +++++++++~~~~~~=== Brivla-cmevla merge
14 3 1 ++++++++++++++~~~= Dotside [already approved by BPFK]
12 3 3 ++++++++++++~~~=== Allowing some currently banned consonant clusters (like -mz-)
12 4 2 ++++++++++++~~~~== fu'ivla rafsi (loanwords as affixes)
It seems like most of the current experimental stuff is approved by the majority!
These were the results of the poll.
I hope that the last question reveals that most of us want to bring some experimental features into OL.
Thank you once again,
~ mi'e la uakci mu'o