Lojban: You're Doing it Worng (was: Re: [lojban] la .alis.)

[Jonathan Jones]

2010/3/28 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban:+You're+Doing+It+Wrong

After reading the Essay by Robin that Jorge pointed out in the {la.alis.}  thread, I have to say that I like the proposal made therein. On the basis that many of us will be reading the essay now that we know of it's existence, and that most of us will like the idea, I move that we vote to correct minli as per goal #1 (internal consistency) of Robin's proposal.

For those that are not aware:

bunda x1 is x2 non-metric weight units in standard x3 with subunits x4

dekpu x1 is x2 non-metric volume units in standard x3 with subunits x4

gutci  x1 is x2 non-metric short distance units in standard x3 with subunits x4

kramu x1 is x2 non-metric area units in standard x3 with subunits x4

minli   x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units with subunits x3 in standard x4

In relation to the other non-metric measurement gismu, minli is te ve te (the x3 and x4 are reversed in respect to the others.)

All in favour of changing the definition of minli from

x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units with subunits x3 in standard x4

to

x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units in standard x3 with subunits x4

?

And, continuing in the spirit of the proposal, does anyone else have an issue they feel needs to be addressed?

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday 29 March 2010 10:11:09 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> All in favour of changing the definition of minli from

> x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units* with subunits x3 **in standard x4*
> to
> *x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units in standard x3 with subunits x4*
> *?*
> *
> *

> And, continuing in the spirit of the proposal, does anyone else have an
> issue they feel needs to be addressed?

I am in favor, and would also like clarification of what goes in the subunits
place: a furlong, a number of furlongs, or something else.

Also "mitre" is the only measurement gismu which has a direction in x3 and the
only measurement gismu other than "minli" which has the standard somewhere
other than x3.

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[Minimiscience]

de'i li 29 pi'e 03 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Jonathan Jones .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.

> I move that we vote to correct minli as per goal #1 (internal consistency) of
> Robin's proposal.

.skamyxatra

I don't think you have the authority to overthrow the current authority.

> And, continuing in the spirit of the proposal, does anyone else have an
> issue they feel needs to be addressed?

The keyword of "{jegvo}" should be "Abrahamic," not "Jehovist"; "{ta'u}"
doesn't seem to serve any purpose; "{ti'o}" will likely never be specified and,
even if it is, really won't be different enough from "{sei}" to warrant a
separate {cmavo}; there are too many cultural {gismu}; the measurement words
can be cut down to half by making them system-independent and adding a {gismu}
for "metric"; and I seem to have misplaced my full list of complaints.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
no zo mi nenri zo bende

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Monday 29 March 2010 10:11:09 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> All in favour of changing the definition of minli from
> x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units* with subunits x3 **in standard x4*
> to
> *x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units in standard x3 with subunits x4*
> *?*
> *
> *
> And, continuing in the spirit of the proposal, does anyone else have an
> issue they feel needs to be addressed?

I am in favor, and would also like clarification of what goes in the subunits
place: a furlong, a number of furlongs, or something else.

 

I think it would depends on which measurement unit being used. For instance, if {minli} is being used to refer to miles, then I would expect the subunit to be yards, or less likely but also possible, feet.

Also "mitre" is the only measurement gismu which has a direction in x3 and the
only measurement gismu other than "minli" which has the standard somewhere
other than x3.

Is there a cmavo for direction and/or dimension? If there is, I'd suggest removing that place from {mitre} completely.

 

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Minimiscience <minimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

de'i li 29 pi'e 03 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Jonathan Jones .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.

> I move that we vote to correct minli as per goal #1 (internal consistency) of
> Robin's proposal.

.skamyxatra

I don't think you have the authority to overthrow the current authority.

 

Never said I did. However, assuming Robin's proposal is accepted, based on my reading of it, all jbopre is considered a member of the BPFK. As such, I am not trying to overthrow the current authority, but merely doing my part to get the job done.

 

In any case, you didn't cast your vote on the issue. Are you abstaining?

> And, continuing in the spirit of the proposal, does anyone else have an
> issue they feel needs to be addressed?

The keyword of "{jegvo}" should be "Abrahamic," not "Jehovist";

 

I used "Judeo-Christian" for that gismu on the Smart.fm lesson.

 

"{ta'u}" doesn't seem to serve any purpose;

 

It does to me, but not a very useful one. What do you think should be done about it?

 

"{ti'o}" will likely never be specified and, even if it is, really won't be different enough from "{sei}" to warrant a separate {cmavo};

 

So I take it you'd like to call a vote to remove ti'o as a cmavo?

 

there are too many cultural {gismu};

 

I admit there are many cultural gismu, but there are also many cultures. If anything, I think there aren't enough, as not all cultures have a gismu. Regardless, which cultural gismu do you think are excessive, why do you think this, and what would you like done about it?

 

the measurement words can be cut down to half by making them system-independent and adding a {gismu} for "metric"; and I seem to have misplaced my full list of complaints.

That's not a bad idea. It makes logical sense. Let's take a look at the involved measurement gismu.

 

kramu x1 is x2 non-metric area units in standard x3 with subunits x4

(no metric gismu? - metric area is (C)m^2)

 

minli x1 is x2 non-metric long distance units with subunits x3 in standard x4

gutci x1 is x2 non-metric short distance units in standard x3 with subunits x4

mitre x1 is x2 meters in direction x3 by standard x4

dekpu x1 is x2 non-metric volume units in standard x3 with subunits x4

litce x1 is x2 liters by standard x3

bunda x1 is x2 non-metric weight units in standard x3 with subunits x4

(no metric gismu - metric weight is Newtons)

 

(no non-metric gismu - non-metric mass is (?))

grake x1 is x2 grams by standard x3

 

Only 3 of the non-metric gismu overlap with the metric gismu. I say leave it alone, for reason of RP#4, and because of the 10^n gismu such as kilto. A kilometer in Lojban is a {kilto mitre} or {ki'omitre} (my preffered form), or {ki'otre}. Assuming {mitre} was kept and, say {metri} was created to mean "x1 is metric measurement", then kilometer would become {kilto metri mitre}, {ki'ometrmitre}, or {ki'ometrtre}. And since only metric uses powers of ten, it just makes metric- likely the most used system- more ungainly, and the- likely much less used- non-metric systems wouldn't get any benefit as compromise.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
no zo mi nenri zo bende

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Matt Arnold]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think you have the authority to overthrow the current authority.
>>
>
> Never said I did. However, assuming Robin's proposal is accepted, based on
> my reading of it, all jbopre is considered a member of the BPFK. As such, I
> am not trying to overthrow the current authority, but merely doing my part
> to get the job done.

It doesn't say all jbopre, it says all LLG members. Offhand I don't
recall whether you're in the Logical Language Group, but I certainly
encourage you (and all active jbopre) to pursue membership.

-Eppcott

[Jonathan Jones]

If anything, I'd rather go the other way, and get rid of the NON-metric measurements, and create a gismu meaning "x1 is non-metric or local measurement."

 

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
no zo mi nenri zo bende

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--

mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu

[Seth]

aye

[Jonathan Jones]

My interpretation was from this line: "The BPFK should be open to anyone who is seriously working on learning the language (and, in fact, the BPFK should be in Lojban as much as possible: this is for formal decisions about the future of the language, by people who actually use it)."

 

-Eppcott

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Matt Arnold]

Well sure, this is how "all jbopre" kind-of-sort-of turns into a rough
analog for "BPFK members" in this plan. I just wanted to point out
that step in the process. Mimiscience is technically correct, but you
are also correct in that you can probably gain the authority you now
lack. So this discussion is not a waste of time.

-Eppcott

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Matt Arnold <matt.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well sure, this is how "all jbopre" kind-of-sort-of turns into a rough
analog for "BPFK members" in this plan. I just wanted to point out
that step in the process. Mimiscience is technically correct, but you
are also correct in that you can probably gain the authority you now
lack. So this discussion is not a waste of time.

I don't disagree that I do not now have such authority, I was merely stating that I am not trying to overthrow the current authority.

 

So, what must I do to join the BPFK?

[Minimiscience]

de'i li 29 pi'e 03 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Jonathan Jones .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.

> In any case, you didn't cast your vote on the issue. Are you abstaining?

.skamyxatra

I support the change. If it should pass, where will it be recorded?

> > The keyword of "{jegvo}" should be "Abrahamic," not "Jehovist";
>
> I used "Judeo-Christian" for that gismu on the Smart.fm lesson.

That omits Islam, which "{jegvo}" is supposed to include. "Abrahamic" includes
all three faiths and, depending on your definitions, may or may not include
Bahá'í.

> > "{ta'u}" doesn't seem to serve any purpose;
>
> It does to me, but not a very useful one. What do you think should be done
> about it?

It should be removed from the language, or at least deprecated.

> So I take it you'd like to call a vote to remove ti'o as a cmavo?

Yes.

> I admit there are many cultural gismu, but there are also many cultures. If
> anything, I think there aren't enough, as not all cultures have a gismu.
> Regardless, which cultural gismu do you think are excessive, why do you
> think this, and what would you like done about it?

I think that only those cultures that are directly relevant to Lojban should
have {gismu}, i.e., Lojban itself ({lojbo}) and the six source languages
({glico}, {jungo}, {rusko}, {spano}, {xindo}, & {xrabo}). The {gismu} for the
continents can also stay, but I don't think they really count as cultural
{gismu} in the first place. The remaining cultural {gismu} should be
deprecated and/or removed and their {rafsi} freed up.

> Only 3 of the non-metric gismu overlap with the metric gismu.

Making *all* of the measurement {gismu} system-independent allows one to refer
to pounds & Newtons and slugs & (kilo)grams (and non-metric amounts of current
& illumination) with relative ease.

> And since only metric uses powers of ten, it just makes metric- likely the
> most used system- more ungainly, and the- likely much less used- non-metric
> systems wouldn't get any benefit as compromise.

If only metric uses powers of ten, then "{ki'otre}" can be safely assumed to
mean "kilometer" in the majority of circumstances. Alternatively, making all
the measurement {gismu} metric by default (e.g., by adding a place "in system
x* (default metric)" to them) also works.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
.au do lifri lo cinri cedra

[Christopher Doty]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 14:08, Minimiscience <minimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that only those cultures that are directly relevant to Lojban should
have {gismu}, i.e., Lojban itself ({lojbo}) and the six source languages
({glico}, {jungo}, {rusko}, {spano}, {xindo}, & {xrabo}).  The {gismu} for the
continents can also stay, but I don't think they really count as cultural
{gismu} in the first place.  The remaining cultural {gismu} should be
deprecated and/or removed and their {rafsi} freed up.

If this were done (which I actually think is not a bad idea), though, one would need to change the definition of these terms, as they're being included based on language, not culture--the gismu ought to be something like "reflects the English language" and not "culture," or else you've lost any sense of cultural neutrality.

Although, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how useful a term like "xindo" is if we're being neutral--what's Chinese?  Is Tibet?  Or people who speak a non-Tibeto-Burman language and live way in the western part of China and don't speak Mandarin?

[Oren]

I also agree that it makes more sense to ditch cultural gismu, since:

1) You'll never be able to have a 'complete set;' there will always be unequal representation

2) You'll never be able to find objective definitions for these cultures/languages/nations/whatever

...it just seems more sensible to me to make them fi'uvla or even just standardized cmene,

otherwise you're diluting gismu space with unclear and unmaintainable elements.

 

We just need to fill in the blanks: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/cultural+fu'ivla

co'o mi'e korbi

--

[Christopher Doty]

It seems like one first step would be to get all of the country names in there (in whatever form--fu'ivla or cmene, but not gismu, in my opinion), but get the cultural stuff out, so that the word is referring ONLY to the country.  One presumably wants to be able to refer to the Chinese economy, still, but without the cultural stuff.

One could then have gismu that were:

x1 reflects language x2 in aspect x3

x1 reflects culture x2 in aspect x3

x1 reflects nationality x2 in aspect x3

That greatly reduces the number of gismu needed, while removing all of the current assumptions that cultural/language/nationality are tied together.  Plus, it makes it far easier to talk about cultures/languages/nationalities that don't have established gismu.

[Christopher Doty]

Can someone fill me in on that page?  I haven't seen it before, but it looks like a previous attempt to create fu'ivla for... "Nationality/Ethnicity/Language" ?  That gets rid of the gismu, but seems to have the same problem...

And what is the unlabeled column?

Thanks,

Chris

[Oren]

Filled in the table headings and added a 'type' column to specify political, ethnic and/or linguistic relevance/validity. Check it out

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/cultural+fu'ivla

co'o mi'e korbi

[Christopher Doty]

Looks good!  Some of the stuff now looks like it's in the wrong column, but I will poke at it a bit later tonight.

I might try to separate the different functions (political/ethnic/linguistic) at some point...

Also, since this was previously an effort that people put time into, does anyone know why the decision was made for these to be fu'ivla as opposed to cmene?

Chris

[Oren]

The reason given at the bottom of the page for the fi'uvla is for five-letter rafsi can be formed. I can see how this has some advantages for structured usage, and really no better application of this lojban feature than names used in international discourse. Perhaps its still ideal to add another column for a cmene version, or just make the 'lojban approximation' into a 'recommended cmene' column?

[chris kerr]

I like these proposed changes. Think of the future too and cultures
and such that don't exist yet but will. It would be nice if it all
worked the same instead of a few odd exceptions.

codrus

[Christopher Doty]

Hrm... I wonder about the best way to do this...

On the one hand, it seems like they should be cmene, since they are, essentially, names.  But then, of course, we need some set of gismu like I mentioned before, are there won't be a straightforward way to say simple propositions like "He is Chinese" (at least, I can't think of any, but maybe the more experienced folks could see an easy way to do that), plus no options for rafsi...

Hrm...

Chris

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday 29 March 2010 17:19:16 Christopher Doty wrote:
> Although, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how useful a term like
> "xindo" is if we're being neutral--what's Chinese? Is Tibet? Or people
> who speak a non-Tibeto-Burman language and live way in the western part of
> China and don't speak Mandarin?

lo .uigru cu jungo lo ka gugde .enai lo ka bangu

mu'omi'e .pier.
--
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.

[Jonathan Jones]

I think that this is a very good idea. It makes more sense to have gismu for the various "reflects" bits of the cultural gismu than to have the cultural gismu. As for whether to use names or fu'ivla, I personally don't care which way to go- that's more a matter of choice, as fu'ivla and names are not ex cathedra.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Stela Selckiku]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Minimiscience <minimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "{ta'u}" doesn't seem to serve any purpose;

I use {ta'u} regularly.

I strongly support our moving to a model of governance where we can
get anything done, but that does not mean that we are about to throw
everything out and start over! We are going to make conservative,
commonsense changes to the official language to bring it into
alignment with usage and rationality. It's not a language redesign.

For one thing, if you want a lean, efficient, consistently organized
loglang then the simple fact is that Lojban is not a good starting
point! I'm working on a loglang myself at the moment, one with
approximately 5 grammatical rules, which I'm sure is enough, and
probably more than enough. Lojban's grammar is ornate, baroque. It's
not going to become a lean, minimalistic language by cutting a few
things here and there. Creating a minimalistic loglang is a sensible
idea, but creating one by simplifying Lojban (and simplifying, and
simplifying, and simplifying) would be madness.

Also, and more importantly, Lojban is not a theoretical language.
Alice, lo nu binxo, la nicte cadzu, la grutrduriani, Esther, Terry the
Tiger Visits the Big City, etc., plus decades of mailing list and IRC
logs, form our corpus. That might not seem like much coming from the
outside world, but to us this is our carefully accumulated history,
this is what we are that makes us an actual linguistic culture and not
any old toy conlang someone's just sketched out. Any changes to the
language that cause new students to be less equipped to read what
we've written would not only do violence to our history, but directly
insult many who are still with us and have put considerable effort
into using this strange language as it stands.

Lojban is a living language; first do no harm!

mi'e la stela selckiku
mu'o

[Oren]

What's the distinction between 'conservative' and 'inactive?'

In reference to the edit frequency of the following page, these two
terms seem interchangeable.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Checkpoints

[four years and counting]