Officially updating "Complete Lojban Language" grammar book. An official LLG proposal passed. Your help needed.

[la gleki]

LLG needs your feedback on updating the reference grammar of Lojban. If you are a fluent speaker of Lojban or a member of LLG please share your feedback (in case you are a fluent speaker please reply in Lojban + optionally in English). Notice: your publicly visible ID, nickname, email will be recorded for future reference by LLG.

The document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.

If you are not a fluent speaker still please have a look at the document and share your thoughts.

Here is the full text of the proposal passed at the meeting of the Logical Language Group and published at https://framateam.org/signup_user_complete/?id=17b4ir6u6by6px693dm8kmy7yw in "LLG Members Meeting 2018" channel:

----

Veto mode of updating CLL:

Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes were recorded 15 years ago or more. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL

Proposed solution in short: a one-time job with most hard work delegated to Gleki, with minimum possible effort from anyone else. Gleki asks LLG voting members, John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and fluent speakers if a collection of mistypes is okay or not and after getting the feedback compiles a new version of CLL and presents it to LLG for verification and approval.

Proposed solution in detail:

the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background  denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.

Any voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and any fluent speaker of Lojban can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually. In case a fluent speaker vetoes a change this vetoing must be done in Lojban and optionally in English by providing reasons why this change should not be applied. In case a voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan vetoes a change the member or John W. Cowan must provide in English their reasons why this change should not be applied. The replier must be informed beforehand that their replies with their publicly visible IDs, names, nicknames will be publicly logged by LLG for future reference.

Who is "fluent speaker of Lojban"? Any person who can speak grammatically correct Lojban and who can be understood by any LLG member who is a fluent speaker too. Veto mode minimizes possible scenarios when such a fluent speaker disagrees with a change to CLL but some malicious person pretends that he/she/ze/they don't understand that a veto was made. In  such cases any other LLG member or fluent speaker can translate the veto or even veto a change themselves instead of that person.

Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes but for this one-time job the document is final)

LLG waits for 2 months since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.

In 2 months in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.

Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.

LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.

Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)

le ve cusku (means of transferring veto replies): in case of LLG member this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. Among those are:

#lojban, #ckule,#jbosnu Freenode IRC channels.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/

this Framateam Mattermost channel

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban

any page of mw.lojban.org

Non-formal procedures: anyone is encouraged to publish this proposal wherever allowed once this proposal passes.

[la gleki]

Notice, the proposal passed on June 26, 2019 at 2:38 am UTC therefore the two-month period ends on August 26, 2019 at 238 UTC.

[Arnt Richard Johansen]

coi lojbo

ni'o
mi mo'u tcidu le nu galfi be cy ly ly kei stidi liste .i da'a le se stidi cu se zanru mi .i dei noi notci cu pinka po'o pa le se stidi .i ca ku mi na'e tolcru ri

ni'o
stidi lo nu vimcu zoi gy
It is illegal to add a hyphen at a place that is not required by this
algorithm.
gy gi'e jmina zoi gy
It is possible to optionally add an y-hyphen between the consonants of any
permissible consonant pair e.g. for stylistic purposes or for the ease of
pronunciation.
gy
.i lo mukti be le se go'i cu na filsmu .i .e'u ko ga'i nai sitna lo purci ke casnu se cusku ku le se stidi

ni'o
ji'a le se stidi cu simlu lo ka jai tolsarcu je xlali .i sa'e ju'o cu'i le cnino javni cu fanta tu'a lo fu'ivla

--
Hello Lojbanis,

I have read the list of change proposals to CLL. All the proposals except one are fine by me. This message is a comment on one of the proposals. I am not vetoing it at this time.

It is suggested to replace:
It is illegal to add a hyphen at a place that is not required by this
algorithm.
with:
It is possible to optionally add an y-hyphen between the consonants of any
permissible consonant pair e.g. for stylistic purposes or for the ease of
pronunciation.

The motivation for this is not clear. If you could possibly cite past discussions in support of this proposal, that would be nice.

Furthermore, the proposal appears to be unnecessary and detrimental. To be precise, it seems to me that the new rules would prevent some fu'ivla.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
This program posts news to billions of machines throughout the galaxy.
Your message will cost the net enough to bankrupt your entire planet.
As a result your species will be sold into slavery. Be sure you know
what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure you want to do this? [yn] y

[Jorge Llambías]

It is suggested to replace:
   It is illegal to add a hyphen at a place that is not required by this
   algorithm.
with:
   It is possible to optionally add an y-hyphen between the consonants of any
   permissible consonant pair e.g. for stylistic purposes or for the ease of
   pronunciation.

I don't have the full context, but I assume the "y" would be permitted betwen the consonants of adjacent rafsi, and not between the consonants of any consonant pair at all, otherwise the morphology gets broken ("to smabru" cannot be pronounced "to symabru" for example).

mi'e xorxes 

[Bob LeChevalier]

My opinion, for what it is worth (I don't have a veto), is that if this
is an actual change to the morphology as it was defined fora couple of
decades, then the fact that Jorge has to raise such questions means that
the proposal was not specified completely enough to be properly debated,
much less decided.

Especially knowing that Jorge could read any recorded
discussion/proposal in Lojban, unlike many of the rest of us (including
Nora who did much of the later work and explication of morphology issues).

I also don't recall any mention of this as a proposal approved by byfy,
and reported to the members or the Board by the byfy jatna

This proposal should not be incorporated into CLL without a proper
documentation, discussion and decision. There is no evidence that such
has taken place.

lojbab

[Gleki Arxokuna]

What entity should discuss it?

There is no evidence that such
has taken place.

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpfk-list/7062992b-d2f3-ef76-7081-d1ca919b04c2%40lojban.org.

[Bob LeChevalier]

In the absence of a byfy or equivalent/replacement, there is no entity
other than the Board (or members during a meeting) that can or should
approve ANY change to the language. That was the state before byfy, and
again is the state until it is replaced.

But if course, if I am correct that it wasn't properly discussed, then
it can and should wait for an organization to be properly constituted (I
won't pretend to understand the convoluted mess that passed during the
meeting, but I had the impression that said approved proposal would in
face require formally documented proposals before they are decided).

Certainly this proposal is NOT merely the correction of an error in the
original CLL, and if not formally approved. My understanding is that
the update to CLL is not supposed to be changing anything that wasn't
part of the original language (and erroneously described) or some
language change proposal that was approved by byfy before it was
disconstituted.

Remember that I personally don't support language changes *in general*
unless they are fixing something broken, though I can only control my
own vote, such as it is.

lojbab

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Ok

But if course, if I am correct that it wasn't properly discussed, then
it can and should wait for an organization to be properly constituted (I
won't pretend to understand the convoluted mess that passed during the
meeting, but I had the impression that said approved proposal would in
face require formally documented proposals before they are decided).

Certainly this proposal is NOT merely the correction of an error in the
original CLL, and if not formally approved.

True

  My understanding is that
the update to CLL is not supposed to be changing anything that wasn't
part of the original language (and erroneously described) or some
language change proposal that was approved by byfy before it was
disconstituted.

Remember that I personally don't support language changes *in general*
unless they are fixing something broken, though I can only control my
own vote, such as it is.

This change is already vetoed by me in llg members mattermost channel. It has poor wording as xorxes noted.

But in general the idea to allow superfluous y was from Cowan.

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpfk-list/99b607e0-27c6-7f13-8a32-1b498e18c0e6%40lojban.org.

[Mark E. Shoulson]

Not quite directly relevant to this, but also regarding hyphens:  I
recall long LONG ago, when I was making a lujvo of vofli+litru, (to
express just "flying along"; it looks like vofli alone would have worked
okay, but it may have had a different place structure then, or maybe I
just didn't realize it.  Not the point), with the rafsi -voi- plus
-li'u-, obviously I need a consonant hyphen to get the required
consonant cluster, but the rules stipulated that it *had* to be -r-,
thus, voirli'u. which at least to my articulatory organs felt quite
awkward.  It winds up being closer to 4 syllables than 3; the -r-
becomes vocalic, or nearly so.  Not so if I had been allowed to say
*voinli'u.  Is there a reason to forbid giving the speaker a choice
regarding the consonant-hyphen, given that there are only two(?) allowed
anyway?

~mark

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 19.24.32 EDT Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Not quite directly relevant to this, but also regarding hyphens: I
> recall long LONG ago, when I was making a lujvo of vofli+litru, (to
> express just "flying along"; it looks like vofli alone would have worked
> okay, but it may have had a different place structure then, or maybe I
> just didn't realize it. Not the point), with the rafsi -voi- plus
> -li'u-, obviously I need a consonant hyphen to get the required
> consonant cluster, but the rules stipulated that it *had* to be -r-,
> thus, voirli'u. which at least to my articulatory organs felt quite
> awkward. It winds up being closer to 4 syllables than 3; the -r-
> becomes vocalic, or nearly so. Not so if I had been allowed to say
> *voinli'u. Is there a reason to forbid giving the speaker a choice
> regarding the consonant-hyphen, given that there are only two(?) allowed
> anyway?

If you allowed the speaker the choice of hyphen-letter (or interfix), then
pandas would be younger than their species.

You're using the English /ɹ/, right? In English <fire> is phonemically /faiɹ/,
but phonetically [faiəɹ], because it's hard to say /ɹ/ right after a closing
diphthong. (I guess this accounts for <fiery>, but why not *<wiery>?) Try a
different rhotic, like /r/ or /ɾ/.

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[Bob LeChevalier]

On 8/14/2019 7:24 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Not quite directly relevant to this, but also regarding hyphens:  I
> recall long LONG ago, when I was making a lujvo of vofli+litru, (to
> express just "flying along"; it looks like vofli alone would have worked
> okay, but it may have had a different place structure then, or maybe I
> just didn't realize it.  Not the point), with the rafsi -voi- plus
> -li'u-, obviously I need a consonant hyphen to get the required
> consonant cluster, but the rules stipulated that it *had* to be -r-,
> thus, voirli'u. which at least to my articulatory organs felt quite
> awkward.  It winds up being closer to 4 syllables than 3; the -r-
> becomes vocalic, or nearly so.  Not so if I had been allowed to say
> *voinli'u.  Is there a reason to forbid giving the speaker a choice
> regarding the consonant-hyphen, given that there are only two(?) allowed
> anyway?

The original reason for having a rule on which consonant to use was so
that there would be a rule, and words would be spelled one canonical way
that could be implemented by computer (CLL section 4.11). The rule also
required use of the shortest form by a specific scoring algorithm
(section 4.12). The lujvo-making and scoring algorithm predates the
split between TLI Loglan and Lojban - JCB and I formulated it in May 1986.

Historically, however, some people wanted to not have to use the
specific scoring algorithm, and we now recognize multiple spellings of
the "same word" can exist using longer rafsi choices (e.g. voflylitru).
So I personally have no problem with using a different hyphen. I don't
think the morphology algorithm gives a problem (other than the general
rule that fu'ivla space is to be exclusive of lujvo space, which might
technically cause someone to think that voinli'u was a fu'ivla because
if it were a lujvo it would be voirli'u).

I think at the time, i actually liked the idea of having the hyphen
vocalized as a separate syllable, but that is probably personal aesthetics.

A formal change to allow this (and to state it as such in CLL) should
still require official approval by LLG (either a byfy-like group or the
Board.

lojbab

[la gleki]

So here is the list of veto votes. Please, inform me if Iforgot to include any other veto votes.

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/CLL_1.2._Technical