coi
I recently stumbled upon a document (le teris...) which was in declined in two versions: "CLL Lojban" and "modern Lojban". I don't understand why.
- What is the status of "modern Lojban"? Is it a kind of beta / pre-release / proposal? Or is there a schism / fork, were a group prefer one version over the other?
- What are (in a few words) the differences between the two? Why choose one or another?
- Where is the reference documentation of "modern Lojban"?
.i ki'e ro do.i co'o
>What is clear, however, is that people don't want to use CLL Lojban (despite the fact
--
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Well, I for one am annoyed. While I wrote the original, in CLL lojban, and I CC-BY'ed it, this so-called "modern lojban" version I abjure and want no part of. Because it looks like from the webpage that I created that version. I did not, and there is no "credit" (read "blame") for the person who actually did the translating into so-called "modern lojban". So if the person who did that would kindly attach their own name as the translator, I'd appreciate it.--Michael "gejyspa" Turniansky
--
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
doi la stela selckikuYou're absolutely right about saying that's an issue finding a "democratic" way or such. I guess applying a "standard" democraty here isn't a good idea of course ; it must be adapted to the situation.My (rough) idea is that people making decisions about Lojban must, at least, have significant knowledge of what they're talking about (This is clearly not my case, as I'm not fluent!). But this group ("committee"?) should accept the fact that language will evolve, whether they like it or not. I guess this idea is already spread and accepted, but I'm not 100% sure.My (strictly personal) point of view is the same as yours : there are practical reasons that make evolution unavoidable. Other people (ie. "non-committee") should then be able to make proposals, run debates, and so on.So, paraphrasing, here are some rules suggestions (to be debated!):
- What is "core" language has to be determined and be clearly stated.
- Reintegration of proposals to the "core" should be reviewed, fixed, and adapted by a "core committee" (Which size? ~10 to 50 people?).
- Being a member of such organization should be restricted to "meritant" people. Of course, "merit" needs to be defined (knowledge? previous work? fluency? all three?).
- Voting may also be slightly weighted with "merit".
- Proposals may be done by anyone. They may be "supported" by anyone (kind of "+1" vote), in order to put presure on the committee.
Is it even possible to get to that? It requires both willings and structures...As for the first point (define what is "core"), I must say I personally was completely lost when I started studying. It is only because of answers in this thread that I discovered why.It felt like anything was a bit fuzzy... except for the (outdated?) CLL. So I (naively) started with the CLL, which looked like "the" official reference.@gejyspa: Thanks for clarification. I'm sorry for you.la .sukender.
coiI recently stumbled upon a document (le teris...) which was in declined in two versions: "CLL Lojban" and "modern Lojban". I don't understand why.
- What is the status of "modern Lojban"? Is it a kind of beta / pre-release / proposal? Or is there a schism / fork, were a group prefer one version over the other?
doi la .aionys..i ki'e u'ucru'e mi punai djuno fe la .byfy.I must say I did not read enough through the various pages to reach that info.Anyway, if you say the BPFK works as I described, then I feel it's good news. However:
- From afar, CLL seems a bit "stuck" at 1.1. Am I right? Do you think there would be some 1.x before 2.0 (ie. minor updates)?
- As I said on #ckule (IRC), it might be a good idea to write on the front page the version of the CLL and its release date ;-)
- Are some "betas" / "working branches" available (or will be available), so that people get a chance to have a look at before the official release?
- Do you have in mind any plausible releases dates? I'm not asking for a contractual thing, of course! Just to have a vague idea in mind.
Aside from that, and from my novice point of view, it seems that forks do exist and seem significant. Isn't it a signal, asking for more updates in the official CLL? Or do you feel that some people forking are simply impatient having their proposals integrated? What is your point of view?la .sykyndyr..i mi kamjunmre mi fi la .lojban. me'a lu .abu. pa li'u le ropno bangu bo manri
.i ganai la .lojban. pe mi toldra gi e'o o'anai ko dragau(I self-evaluate my Lojban level as being less than A1, as for the CEFR. Please correct my Lojban if I'm wrong!)
lo'ai fi sa'ai fu le'ai ie peii ji'a e'u lo'ai me'a lu .abu. pa li'u sa'ai li .abu pi'e pa le'ai ie pei
--
[side note: I'll answer {la guskant} when I will have read the answer and links ;-) ]Thank you for that historical answer, Gleki.Yes, I perfectly understand the huge damage it can cause.Nevertheless, I also understand why this may arise: I never saw a set of rules accepted by 100% of people!
- Laws? There are plenty of debates. Countries have different ones. People disagree on many, but also often agree on core ones.
- Coding style rules? There are as many guidelines as coders! However, enforcing the whole developer team to use them makes teamwork more effective. They're like a common language.
- Language rules? Phew! Everyone knows someone who has his/her "very own" way to spell words, or organize sentences...
For the sake of Lojban's survival and spreading (and despite my very short history on that language), I think all must agree on some unique version, and accept the debate to make it evolve, and accept that not all proposals will fit in, and that reintegration of proposals may take months or years.
Said otherwise, we must all "agree to disagree", may I say...By the way, your answer makes me think about software distributions. Do we want our future GNU-Linux / Android / iOS / Windows / BSD / whatever contain a lot of "jbo_*" (imagine "jbo_FR", "jbo_EN", "jbo_CA"...), or just a unique "jbo" language?Unicity of Lojban is, IMHO, vital. I personally would just drop learning Lojban if I had no hope of that.Thanks again.la .sykyndyr.
Le lundi 6 novembre 2017 14:10:44 UTC+1, Gleki Arxokuna a écrit :This is a long standing issue. As shanoxilt once correctly noted Lojban was hijacked by a clique of so called fluent speakers.They started forking never completing any printed documentation of they were doing. Firs they change the meaning of the particle {lo}, then tried to implement other changes including even the formal grammar.When people try to speak to fluent speakers they are immediately faced with these discprepancies between The Complete Lojban Language book and views of particular people. You can imagine all the negative consequences of this situation.But in spite of deterioration of Lojban community and its inability to produce any fruitful results still Lojban is pretty much how The Complete Lojban Language describes it.E.g. learning a revised meaning {lo} is no big deal.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
You will find issues for CLL 1.2 here:The issues were already discussed by past lojbanists, and Cirko worked on introducing them into the next version of CLL. Gleki asked BPFK members for approval of them, and no one responded:I, as a member of BPFK, am responsible for approving them, but I did not have enough time for that. Even if I have time for that, I can't imagine that I can approve any English texts written by an native English speaker because I'm very poor at English.You can freely approve them even if you are not a member of BPFK. If you want to do it as a member of BPFK, just post a message in Lojban to "bpfk-list" Google Group at the URL above, saying that you want to be a member, and you will be admitted.
You should find many branches at the github repository above. I have never contributed to the repository for some reasons:- the repository is governed by "the Lojban Coders' Group". I regard it as a kind of unofficial fans' group. Although the Group owns many official or pre-official contents, the owner(s) and the contributors are not equal to the members of BPFK or LLG. I am a member of BPFK and LLG, and I have never invited as a collaborator or an owner of the group. I once made a small pull request to another repository of the group, but it was ignored for almost one year.- I made some efforts on bpfk-list to remove grammatical difficulties or important logical defects, but we had always a stubborn defender of the current state. You can find such discussions with no conclusion in the bpfk-list Google Group above. Consequently, I have lost hope in updating CLL, and shifted myself to create a large personal commentary on the whole CLL ver.1.1.
lo'ai fi sa'ai fu le'ai ie peii ji'a e'u lo'ai me'a lu .abu. pa li'u sa'ai li .abu pi'e pa le'ai ie pei
--
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.
Thanks for reading,
"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."
- Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.
I don't know much about the history of OpenGL but it, from a surface level, seems similar to the history of C++, which I am familiar with.
By and large, new features are added to the C++ language, but every version is backwards-compatible with older versions (and almost entirely compatible with its predecessor, C).
An older compiler might choke on new language features, but a new compiler will always work with old code.
Compiler vendors may introduce their own language features as forks (and they are not considered standard C++), but there is always a standard/"strict" mode that can be enabled. Most good features that compilers introduce have been added to the official version, perhaps changed in a way to integrate them better.
This is what I think Lojban should be like.
I want all new / official Lojban versions to be CLL-compatible.
> "jbo_*" (imagine "jbo_FR", "jbo_EN", "jbo_CA"...),
I do not want there to be "jbo_A", "jbo_B", "jbo_C"... that are all incompatible.
I do want "jbo_1", "jbo_2", "jbo_3"..., where it's a sequential chronology and each is a more improved (but backwards-compatible) version.
A tool could explicitly support "jbo_2" and it would implicitly support "jbo_1". If a tool just says it supports "jbo", it would be presumed to support the latest.
> But this group ("committee"?) should accept the fact that language will evolve, whether they like it or not.
I hope that this means that they accept the language can change, by backwards-compatible design and not evolution via drift.
C++ does not at all "evolve" like a natural language and I don't think Lojban should, either. Because C++ has maintained a centralised standard and continued to update, I think it possible for Lojban to do so.
> What is clear, however, is that people don't want to use CLL Lojban (despite the fact that it is still the most thoroughly documented version).
I do.
I think most people want to use the latest version of something. I see the CLL Lojban as the latest version, for the backwards-compatibility reasons mentioned above.
I have seen CLL-incompatible versions advertised on the website and new learners are likely to intuit that it's intrinsically better to choose the "latest version", not knowing that learning the modern versions entails embracing a schism.
> To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that Lojban was more that just an experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is...
This is so true for me, and one of the reasons that I became more quiet (although I am writing an unannounced novel that contains CLL Lojban).
> I just don't want to spend time learning things if they would be thrown away in a few months/years
> sykynder: You mention re-integrating forks back into the core language. How do you change something and then make it the same as it was before?
I believe all official Lojban changes must be backwards-compatible for Lojban to succeed in its goal of being unambiguous (let alone succeed in other ways, such as adoption).
> E.g. learning a revised meaning {lo} is no big deal.
It's not just about learning, it's about effort invested in writing tools, texts, chatbots and parsers (et cetera).
It's about breaking that promise in the CLL that the language will not be subject to further fiddling.
Introducing changes that break Lojban compatibility will
- waste invested time in the older version
- waste invested money in buying the older CLL (etc)
- alienate those who wasted their time/money
- introduce more ambiguity (The Lojban version changes the meaning!!)
(Why did CLL-{le} become modern-{lo}
and the modern-{le} get introduced, instead of just introducing the new {lo} to mean what modern-{le} means and keeping CLL-{le} as the default?)
As learning a revised meaning is no big deal, simply redoing these changes to be compatible with CLL Lojban should be no big deal ;)
"Lojban does not yet have nearly the vocabulary it needs to be a fully usable language of the modern world"
- Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/
If we can agree to move forward using CLL Lojban and only make backwards-compatible changes, then I can personally say I'll be happy to resume devoting time, energy and money into Lojban.
Lojban's usefulness as an unambiguous language is so important to me.
It doesn't have to be "perfect" or "better", it just has to be unambiguous and complete.
I want to help complete Lojban, and any processes of governance surrounding it, to reunite it.
Thanks for reading,
mi'e la timoteios.
From: loj...@googlegroups.com <loj...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suke...@gmail.com <suke...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2017 6:04 AM
To: lojban
Subject: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
Wow. This is even worse than I thought.
One great thing about Lojban is that it is supposed to be unique. What I read here is like if people said "Hey, I invented a Lojban-French", and "Me, a Lojban-Chinese", and "Lojban-English"... That sounds so stupid.
Let me be clear: I'm NOT judging anyone forking Lojban. Surely they had good reasons to do so. Actually nobody can pretend forseeing any case, and write an "immutable" language. So yes, it is obvious that the language evolves and will evolve, even an hypothetic "official an unique" Lojban.
What is unfortunate is that all forking work should be reintegrated in some way to the "trunk", or else we'll end up with many "Lojbans" wich will actually kill Lojban (whatever version).
I understand the lack of leadership, but it feels more like a lack of structures for democraty. It would be nice to have such structures, but unfortunately I don't know how this could be initiated. One idea would be to mimic software, a bit as OpenGL did, having the core, extensions, and proposals.
To be frank, I feel a bit betrayed. I feel bad because my hope was that Lojban was more that just an experiment. Someone, please, prove me it is...
--
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."
- Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.
doi la .guskant.Thanks for the links. That seems interesting, but I just can't read big Lojban discussions: it took me days (yeah, from time to time, not continuously!) to read and understand 100% of this famous "la .teris."!My current level is one of the reasons why I'm absolutely not ready to enter any board or committee.
Is there an HTML version somewhere so that everyone can access it without developer tools?
* Paralysis *So, according to what you say, BPFK is really paralyzed. When you want to rely on someone's work, well, (s)he might simply be overloaded with other tasks and may never answer. It seems that there are no "replacement" guys/gals: if one is not able to perform a task, whatever the reason, then nobody can replace him/her. Do you think so too?
It feels so dramatic to me that you've lost hope. It is exactly what I feared: anyone can do whatever, in whatever direction. That's freedom. That's not wrong in itself. But... nothing more? Ideas create "explosions" and there is no structure at all to make all of this collapse to something better and organized?
You told your efforts were blocked by some people. Were there discussions (I mean enough discussions)? Voting? Enough participants in voting? Enough time for the committee to work on proposals?
- If so, maybe there is something to do with structures (as said above)?
- If not, maybe all committee members should accept the fact that language will evolve?
* Funds *As I just told to Gleki : "even if many Lojbanists are enthusiasts, they all need money to live and cannot work for free indefinitely".You know, some guy on the Facebook group (Сергей Ильинских) asked if "crypto-currency rewards" could be an idea for translations jobs. At first I thought this was not very useful, and surely complex to set up. However, I feel now that the idea behind this (money to encourage people working on Lojban stuff) may be one of the "energy sources" that would change the game. Of course, this has to be very carefully handled! But we may imagine something like periodic small fund raising (donations, crowdfunding, etc.) on one hand, and a system putting clear (and small) objectives and rewards on the other hand. I feel like the idea has to be enhanced and discussed... But don't you think it is worth debating on this? This of course would be only some tools to help, and the current organizations would still be there and help.
* Organizations *An by the way, this thread highlighted the fact that there are 3 "major" groups down there: LLG, GPFK, and the Coders Group. Even if history may explain why there are three, the current "freezing" status of all may be a signal for changing things. I don't know even 1% of what each did; but FROM AFAR, it seems that all organizations share some common interests, and may perform better together. Of course, merging everyone into a single entity is surely fictional. But they may organize as "subsidiary companies", sharing a purely administrative section with some functional parts (ex: financial as for the previous topic, rule sets, etc.). Do you feel this would be technically possible? And would this be desirable and profitable?
I thought about this overnight (!) and specifically about one rule: as people discuss about language, is it wise to allow discussions to be in Lojban only? Maybe a common rule of requiring a (rough?) translation in another "reference" language would help. Of course, as there are plenty of materials in English out there, it seems logical that this would be English, but that's not mandatory, I guess.You known, I'm willing to help but I can only help organizing stuff, and spreading the word. Not much more because of my too recent implication.
* [side note] *Thank you very much for helping me improving my skills.
- "li .abu pi'e pa" is just a great idea! I didn't know how to convert the "A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2" levels, so I used a basic "translation". But putting as if it was a number "A dot 1" of unspecified base is awesome!
- But what about the "less than"? Can I write "me'i li .abu pi'e pa"?
- My bad about "fo" (and not "fi"): I was counting "fa" from x2 instead of x1, as for "se" (because there is no "x1 <-> x1" swapping cmavo), so I had an offset of 1. I mixed up counting rules!
- Note : I thought "me'a..." was a sumti place, but parser told me it's a modal. So I guess I cannot use it, or else "le ropno bangu bo manri" would fall in m3 place (units) of "kamjunmre".
- Finally, your last sentence is too obscure for my level! What I understand: "One cannot say `I'm never wrong`. I can only wish (???)".
ki'ecai
la .sykyndyr.
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
> Ok, can you join BPFK committee or LLG to help us update CLL at least in terms of fixing mistypes?
{lo x} designated the salient node in the matrix generated by part-whole on the set of xs. What are the new wrinkles?
Trying to be very concrete: let's say I have some hours to dedicate to the project... is there some action that I could do that would increase the chances of reaching a CLL 2.0, or a 4th baseline grammar, or in general to have an updated specification of how "official" Lojban should be understood?
- I was talking about a live HTML version of the "beta" CLL 1.2 (not meetings)! :-) Is there any?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent,
What do you mean? Is there something that documents this?
> is not complete,
I agree and would like to help complete it.
> and especially cannot be completed in a coherent way that is consistent with CLL.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "complete". I am talking from a user perspective and I don't see why completing it would cause issues.
Some things I would like to see for completion include:
- full dictionary fully described in Lojban
- complete reference grammar written in Lojban
- Lojban words to describe Lojban versions, Lojban grammar, place structures, etc.
- full website, available also in pure Lojban, with only official content and process of content approval
- user-friendly parsers and grammar-checkers easily available on major platforms
- official learning resources tested and refined (and also centralised so there's only one official one of each kind)
- translations of core materials (i.e. those mentioned in above dot points) to major/target languages
- governance structure in place to produce new Lojban versions
- automatic translators (from Lojban into natural languages) available
It's a big wishlist, but I don't see how these things would break the grammar.
What do you think?
From: loj...@googlegroups.com <loj...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of And Rosta <and....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017 1:35 AM
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
--On 7 November 2017 at 13:49, Timothy Lawrence <timothy....@connect.qut.edu.au> wrote:
"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."
- Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.
We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent, is not complete, and especially cannot be completed in a coherent way that is consistent with CLL. To the best of my knowledge, nobody who understands and cares about logic and consistency has ever maintained that CLL Lojban is viable. However, there are people who hold that fidelity to CLL -- and to a standard dialect that emerges spontaneously from CLL-faithful usage -- is of paramount importance, outweighing considerations of logic and consistency. The community has always been polarized between these two positions; all that has changed is that the former group has grown at the expense of the latter, as the requisite understanding of the logical issues has spread.
--And.
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
YES!
- Non-ambiguous grammar (~= monoparsing, machine parsable)
- Unicity (~= forks are experiments or proposals)
- Cultural neutrality
- Partially based on logic
- Rather stable ("rather" has to be refined)
- Usable (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)
- Usage defines the language, as long as these "basics" are untouched.
- However the "usage" is rather a blurry situation for now...
NO!
- Immutable base grammar, and immutable base vocabulary (cmavo, important gismu...)
- Targeted to be TOTALLY based on logic
- Ideal (or "perfect") language (la .pycyn. pointed out that issue)
Maybe desirable, but impossible
- Backward-compatibility of versions (added after what la .timoteios. said)
- Fully formal and complete grammar (as Gleki and And Rosta said)
- Keep strictly what original designers wanted (because they could not foresee all potential issues)
Gleki,First of all, my intent was not to offense anyone. But it seems, from your answer, that you were a bit... annoyed? Irritated??
Indeed, defining Lojban by "Lojban 1987" is a bit light, IMHO! I understand you'd like to avoid drifting much from the 1987 definition. But this definition is even not clear to me (hence the summary)!Well, I was just trying to sum up things with a twofold goal: make it clear (to myself, to anyone not "expert"), and establish a kind of base rules to highlight what may NOT go in evolutions of Lojban (which brings me to the next point below...).Just to make it clear: are you against evolving Lojban or not?
I guess no, but I'm asking because your short answer may be (mis)interpreted as "I want Lojban to be forever what it was in 1987". Personally, I feel like engraving a standard into stone is not a good idea. I bet the best that can happen is evolution in a very "controlled" and "well thought" way; that is to say not "anyone making forks in any direction", and not "merging ideas 'as they come' into the standard" (such as "macarena" words... What a bad joke!).About your answer: you're right, most languages are machine parsable. But:1. I was talking about Lojban only.
2. This doesn't make other languages "non ambiguous" (in grammar).
I personally like Lojban because it is so unique
: compared to languages I speak, it removes a whole burden of exceptions, ambiguities, and weird stuff. Well, all of these particularities also make those natural langues unique, but not in the way it would help learning them.
As for cultural neutrality, yes, it is indeed discutable. Maybe this would be moved to the "desirable" section?
But as many pointed out, and despite the fact gismu used some natural languages as sources, Lojban sounds/looks like no other.
And there is no emphasis on any culture, right?
Maybe only some biases from time to time (to fix?). From my point of view, this is where it differentiates from Esparanto, which is closely related to Latin languages (I don't talk Esperanto, so correct me if I'm wrong).
--
No, I just pointed out incorrect statements about Lojban in your list.
Just to make it clear: are you against evolving Lojban or not?No answer from me.
1. I was talking about Lojban only.Defining Lojban via Lojban? Then why not "Lojban is Lojban" definition?
2. This doesn't make other languages "non ambiguous" (in grammar).How? Please, provide examples how other languages are ambigous. Notice that some constructed languages (like TLI Loglan) are said to have exactly the same as Lojban in the same formalism.
I personally like Lojban because it is so uniqueSo is English, which is English and not non-English.: compared to languages I speak, it removes a whole burden of exceptions, ambiguities, and weird stuff. Well, all of these particularities also make those natural langues unique, but not in the way it would help learning them.Despite that more people speak Abkhaz than Lojban.
As for cultural neutrality, yes, it is indeed discutable. Maybe this would be moved to the "desirable" section?So you break descriptivism and move into either politics or some "Future Lojban".
But as many pointed out, and despite the fact gismu used some natural languages as sources, Lojban sounds/looks like no other.Sounds to whom? To me (not a native English speaker) Lojban is the language most close to English compared to major spoken languages in the world.
And there is no emphasis on any culture, right?Of course, therefore no word for Mozambique culture, a word for Malay culture is enough.
Maybe only some biases from time to time (to fix?). From my point of view, this is where it differentiates from Esparanto, which is closely related to Latin languages (I don't talk Esperanto, so correct me if I'm wrong).To the languages the founder spoke (Latin, Polish, German, Yiddish, Russian and somewhat French, English ...)
Gleki Arxokuna:No, I just pointed out incorrect statements about Lojban in your list.Good. I'll try to set up a fixed list then.Just to make it clear: are you against evolving Lojban or not?No answer from me.Oh. Surprising answer, but... as you wish.1. I was talking about Lojban only.Defining Lojban via Lojban? Then why not "Lojban is Lojban" definition?No, no! Maybe my English was not clear. I was just saying I'm trying to define basics without using comparisons to languages. Just "common words", not lang. comparisons.2. This doesn't make other languages "non ambiguous" (in grammar).How? Please, provide examples how other languages are ambigous. Notice that some constructed languages (like TLI Loglan) are said to have exactly the same as Lojban in the same formalism.Sure, here are some examples. I'm not 100% sure they are relevant, but that's just a few ideas.English:
- "Sam likes you more that Max." => Does Sam likes you more than Max likes you? Or does Sam likes you more than (s)he likes Max?
- "Prettly little girl's school" (CLL example)
French:
- "Le prévenu avoue à son avocat qu’il a tué sa femme" => "sa" is not clear about which one it refers. That may happen in Lojban too using (for instance) a vague meaning like "ra".
- But French language has no means to make an unambiguous utterance here, except by adding a second utterance adding precision.
- "Voyant l'éléphant prisonnier des braconniers, il prit sa défense" => Here the word "défense" has multiple meanings.
- "J'ai perdu mes fils" => Similar. But here a pronunciation difference that makes the sentence unambiguous orally, but ambiguous when written.
- "Je suis Max" => May mean "I am Max" or "I'm following Max"
I know Lojban allows the speaker to be vague, and allows usage of approximations. And it is also NOT a context-free grammar. But there is a huge gap between native languages and Lojban on the topic of ambiguity, IMO.
I don't know for other conlangs, actually. Thanks for the info ; I'll have a look. Please note I'm NOT trying to "define how Lojban is unique compared to others".
I personally like Lojban because it is so uniqueSo is English, which is English and not non-English.: compared to languages I speak, it removes a whole burden of exceptions, ambiguities, and weird stuff. Well, all of these particularities also make those natural langues unique, but not in the way it would help learning them.Despite that more people speak Abkhaz than Lojban.Yes. And...? What's the point?
As for cultural neutrality, yes, it is indeed discutable. Maybe this would be moved to the "desirable" section?So you break descriptivism and move into either politics or some "Future Lojban".Frontier is indeed not that clear, you're right. This is why I wrote "MAYBE desirable" in the original list. Those points may then be marked as such.As for "Future Lojban", I must say I'm very happy with the current CLL and have no reason (apart from a few tiny fixes) to move. What I say is that despite of this, being against its evolution will induce more forks, more dilution, and finally will kill Lojban. I'm no seer/prophet and cannot be 100% sure of this, but many projects I saw ended this way. And thats seems obvious too, especially knowing how protectionism of Loglan ended.But as many pointed out, and despite the fact gismu used some natural languages as sources, Lojban sounds/looks like no other.Sounds to whom? To me (not a native English speaker) Lojban is the language most close to English compared to major spoken languages in the world.Yes, this is exactly what I mean: you think it sounds English, while others think it sounds Russian (I don't see how... but why not), and some others Portuguese... etc. So, it seems there are many answers. May that come from the initial gisu creation algorithm? I don't know.Anyway, that was just a side note on my personal feelings...And there is no emphasis on any culture, right?Of course, therefore no word for Mozambique culture, a word for Malay culture is enough.Really? Oh. Sorry then. I missed that kind of things. Maybe that could be a point to improve?Maybe only some biases from time to time (to fix?). From my point of view, this is where it differentiates from Esparanto, which is closely related to Latin languages (I don't talk Esperanto, so correct me if I'm wrong).To the languages the founder spoke (Latin, Polish, German, Yiddish, Russian and somewhat French, English ...)Here also I suppose it may be one of the efforts to put on "future Lojban", to make it more neutral.Thank you for having shared your point of view.la .sykyndyr.
{.i mi klama} = "I come, I came, I will have come" ? Ambiguous.
Right. Or referring by name. When you need precision you add words, similar in Lojban.
Lojban is not by definition free of polysemy.
That's where I agree in regard to French. Lojban and Mandarin Chinese have unambiguous self-segregation morphology provided that communication channel has low noise.
I know Lojban allows the speaker to be vague, and allows usage of approximations. And it is also NOT a context-free grammar. But there is a huge gap between native languages and Lojban on the topic of ambiguity, IMO.I hope my sarcastic but serious (ge'exo'o ge'ezo'onai) remarks proved that wrong.
I don't know for other conlangs, actually. Thanks for the info ; I'll have a look. Please note I'm NOT trying to "define how Lojban is unique compared to others".It'd be imo more productive to simply remove from the analysis anything that looks like a conlang (proglangs, Esperanto, gua\spi)
Despite that more people speak Abkhaz than Lojban.Yes. And...? What's the point?Even if at some theoretical level Lojban is easier to learn no one learns it. It's like one of cryptic proglangs that geeks adore, discuss its pragmatic usefullness but almost no one uses.
- "Voyant l'éléphant prisonnier des braconniers, il prit sa défense" => Here the word "défense" has multiple meanings
--
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.
* Lojban basics *What defines Lojban? (Or "What should never change in Lojban?"). So, if I try to sum up again from various sources, the answers are below (please tell if you disagree):YES!
- Non-ambiguous grammar (~= monoparsing, machine parsable)
- Unicity (~= forks are experiments or proposals)
- Cultural neutrality
- Partially based on logic
- Rather stable ("rather" has to be refined)
- Usable (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)
- Usage defines the language, as long as these "basics" are untouched.
- However the "usage" is rather a blurry situation for now...
{.i mi klama} = "I come, I came, I will have come" ? Ambiguous.Ambiguous? I'd rather say "vague". I mean, for me, is is grammatically perfectly clear, despite no tense is provided.
Right. Or referring by name. When you need precision you add words, similar in Lojban.Yup. I just told that there is no grammatical mean in French, whereas there are in Lojban. Of course, means may be cumbersome... and that's another point!Lojban is not by definition free of polysemy.Sure! But as a conlang with such base rules, polysemy has not the same "level", IMO.
That's where I agree in regard to French. Lojban and Mandarin Chinese have unambiguous self-segregation morphology provided that communication channel has low noise.Really? I thought is was not that always the case. Anyway, I often hear, those says, people having much trouble with pronunciation (in French); this generally strongly affects the meaning. There are many famous pairs / paraphony ("et" / "est", "pomme" / "paume", etc.). This makes me think that tiny differences generate more issues.
I know Lojban allows the speaker to be vague, and allows usage of approximations. And it is also NOT a context-free grammar. But there is a huge gap between native languages and Lojban on the topic of ambiguity, IMO.I hope my sarcastic but serious (ge'exo'o ge'ezo'onai) remarks proved that wrong.Well, of course, no one can say "Lojban is perfect, everything else is crap". Lojban has issues. That's obvious. But what I mean is that Lojban tends to avoid some common issues in languages. The difference is not "day and night" of course. But I'm still not convinced that the gap is small, or that Lojban is "just another language".However I must say all your remarks are interesting. Thanks again.I don't know for other conlangs, actually. Thanks for the info ; I'll have a look. Please note I'm NOT trying to "define how Lojban is unique compared to others".It'd be imo more productive to simply remove from the analysis anything that looks like a conlang (proglangs, Esperanto, gua\spi)Alright!Despite that more people speak Abkhaz than Lojban.Yes. And...? What's the point?Even if at some theoretical level Lojban is easier to learn no one learns it. It's like one of cryptic proglangs that geeks adore, discuss its pragmatic usefullness but almost no one uses.Are you saying it's not worth learning Lojban?
If so, your position is then unclear to me. Or are you saying that despite efforts people still see it as a doomed
& geek language
(which is a bit what I said about "low notoriety")?la .sykyndyr.
>The logic on which Lojban is “based” is again a European creation (mainly Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian). It takes no account of the
logical traditions of India or >China nor of the specialized languages developed there for logic. So, it is hardly culturally neutral in the sense suggested.
JCB ditched most of the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave for precision and most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at least some of that back (not yet all by a long shot). Lojban is just an SAE language that looks a little strange because position in a sentence does not have a fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the center. End of borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).
Lojban’s claim to be based on logic is not significantly different from the similar claim for any language (sentences derived by transformations from underlying semantic representations which are often presented as formulae in some higher order intensional logic). JCB ditched most of the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave for precision and most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at least some of that back (not yet all by a long shot). Lojban is just an SAE language that looks a little strange because position in a sentence does not have a fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the center. End of borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).The logic on which Lojban is “based” is again a European creation (mainly Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian). It takes no account of the logical traditions of India or China nor of the specialized languages developed there for logic.
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Lojban’s claim to be based on logic is not significantly different from the similar claim for any language (sentences derived by transformations from underlying semantic representations which are often presented as formulae in some higher order intensional logic). JCB ditched most of the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave for precision and most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at least some of that back (not yet all by a long shot). Lojban is just an SAE language that looks a little strange because position in a sentence does not have a fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the center. End of borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).The logic on which Lojban is “based” is again a European creation (mainly Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian). It takes no account of the logical traditions of India or China nor of the specialized languages developed there for logic. So, it is hardly culturally neutral in the sense suggested. Of course, the need for cultural neutrality was prompted by the thoroughly bogus SWH, so its absence is not very damaging, except to the repeated claims to have it.
For a more thorough (though slightly out-of-date) version of all this, see The role of Error in the History of Loglans (in 8 parts or so) at pkipo.blogspot.com.
For a more thorough (though slightly out-of-date) version of all this, see The role of Error in the History of Loglans (in 8 parts or so) at pkipo.blogspot.com.1. What was the initial screw-up? FOPL (or HOIL or whatever system you choose) depends upon a clear demarcation of different syntactic types (and the corresponding different semantics). JCB, from the beginning, scrambled these types: quantifiers (sentence-makers with one variable and one sentence) are terms, conjunctions (sentence-makers with two sentences) are term-makers, modals, tenses and negation (sentence-makers with one sentence) are predicate makers and so on. How is teh structure that allows a logical system to work to be found in all that muddle?
To be sure, in the interest of speakablity, some such changes will have to come about, but they are at the end of a process of derivation, not at the beginning. Most of the 60 year Logjam construction process has been rying to patch up this gap -- and there is no evidence that it has succeeded -- or is even going in the right direction. Monoparsing, yes (pretty much), but not evidence of correct monoparsing.
2. People who talk about SAE languages tend to forget what that term means in Sapir and Whorf. The characteristic of SAE languages is summed up in literal surface reading of S: NP + VP. The language consists of names of things embedded in a matrix words for properties and relations and actions. This contrasts with the”purer” “primitive” language where sentences are just long complex verbs. S n W circularly inferred that SAE speakers view the world (have a metaphysics) of isolated things and their properties, relations, and activities, while the Hopi or Menominee or whatever view the world as made up of processes (what verbs refer to).
Logjam, in its various forms, is clearly of the former sort, terms and predicates.
The fact that every aspect of this distinction is simple hogwash doesn’t matter much, except that it does mean the Logjam was, from day one, useless for testing SWH and was (in SnW’s terms) not culturally neutral.3. To be sure, the logical traditions of India and China did not develop a set of extralinguistic symbols to deal with their notions. However, they did use a rigorously controlled (oh, m,y how hard to get the rules right!) stylized version of the basic language (Sanskrit or Chinese or Tibetan) which could easily -- and has been -- converted to Western-style symbolic systems. The concerns of these logical traditions (less clearly in China, where the tradition was crushed early on in the Confucian triumph) were the standard ones of logic: validity, entailment, third values and the like. Indian logic is clearly (and Chinese possibly) intensional
, as opposed to the extensional core of Western logic. It maybe that a HOIL (the assumed logic underlying languages) can enfold Indian logic without difficulty, but it has not yet done so (I think). But Logjam, based on FOPL, is clearly not culturally neutral again.Of course, I assume that reformers are constantly changing how Logjam is to be defined and what its goals and values and property are. So, maybe all the traditional ones are now passe’ But I am still waiting for the new list and wondering how that new list, if markedly different, can still claim to be about a language in the Loglan tradition.
On Saturday, November 11, 2017, 5:08:14 PM CST, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le samedi 11 novembre 2017 14:57:25 UTC, clifford a écrit :Lojban’s claim to be based on logic is not significantly different from the similar claim for any language (sentences derived by transformations from underlying semantic representations which are often presented as formulae in some higher order intensional logic). JCB ditched most of the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave for precision and most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at least some of that back (not yet all by a long shot). Lojban is just an SAE language that looks a little strange because position in a sentence does not have a fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the center. End of borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).The logic on which Lojban is “based” is again a European creation (mainly Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian). It takes no account of the logical traditions of India or China nor of the specialized languages developed there for logic. So, it is hardly culturally neutral in the sense suggested. Of course, the need for cultural neutrality was prompted by the thoroughly bogus SWH, so its absence is not very damaging, except to the repeated claims to have it.coi la pycynThank you for the historical information about Loglan and Lojban. However, I (and maybe la sykyndyr also) tried to "define" what to be called the current and the future Lojban. That "definition" may be shifted from JCB's or the later creaters' will.As for my point of view of cultural neutrality, the facts of the ancient India and the ancient China you pointed out cannot negate my theory.Some of what are studied in the ancient Indian and the ancient China are now translated as "logic" into English because of the property of studies related to reasoning. However, the subjects of those studies are reasoning, not the symbols of Sanscrit or Hanzi. Those cultures did not invent what can be translated as "symbolic logic", in which a new language consisting of symbols simplified and specialized for expressing logic was invented.As I have already discussed, that language invented for European logic are not logic itself. That language, as well as Lojban, should be able to express the ancient Indian logic or the ancient Chinese logic by defining suitably logical axioms and rules of deduction, just like the modern expression of fraction $frac{1}{3}$ can express both European "one over three" and Chinese "san fen zhi yi"; the latter consists of "three", "separation", postposition that means "of", "one".mi'e la guskant
--
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Incidentally, there is a work-in-progress piece of software that
aim to translate back and forth between Lojban and a custom
logical notation ; the project is called Tersmu: https://gitorious.org/tersmu/tersmu/
5. I confess that, aside from constantly fiddling with minutiae, I have no idea what reformers have as a vision for Lojban 2.0 or whatever. Does it still aim at the old goals, has it dropped some, has it added others, is it totally different? Of course, over the years even the goals of the CLL fundamentalists have become increasingly less clear as even they diddle with this cmavo or that, even this. selma’o or that. All ultimately to no particularly interesting point, so far as I can see from what is floating around now.
Please provide any critics, on the form and substance.
Wow. I mean "Waaaaaaow!": you guys & gals seem to have "somewhat deeply" study subject of languages, logic, predicates, morphisms, philosophy... and a few other words I'm not 100% sure I understand the contours (maybe my English level?). Of course, you may say that you did not dive as deep as you wanted ;) ...
Don't worry. I've been speaking English for 54+ years, and I never understand that stuff, either. It's not English, it's either linguistics, logic, or logicolinguistics. That's why I never get mired in these threads, because it always devolves into that stuff.
> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent,
What do you mean?
Is there something that documents this?
> is not complete,
I agree and would like to help complete it.
--
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.
And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase:
- CLL 1.1 "purists", who want to "NOT throw away" what has been learned
- The ones who want to "bug fix" CLL regarding to logic.
- The ones who want to "upgrade" CLL.
It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas would break up many things (thus forcing to "re-learn" when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clues on this?
(And yes, each potential change would have to be evaluated on that question.)Aside from that, I feel that the 2nd and 3rd group should agree to perform first common steps altogether. Isn't it the case? If not, why?la .sykyndyr.
Le lundi 13 novembre 2017 16:44:47 UTC+1, And Rosta a écrit :On 8 Nov 2017 12:54, "Timothy Lawrence" <timothy....@connect.qut.edu.au> wrote:> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent,
What do you mean?CLL does not give complete and consistent rules for unambiguously mapping Lojban sentences to logical forms. For folk for whom Lojban's purportedly being a logical language is its paramount property, that is a big deal.Is there something that documents this?I don't know. It's certainly there in the mail archives and antique wiki pages. Selpahi read through 25 years of email and wiki discussion in order to understand the issues.My sense is that the folk who care about logic are more interested simply in mending the language rather than in creating documents that focus on explaining in one place all the problems with CLL Lojban, but there may well be newer expository stuff I don't know about.A complicating factor is that not only is the community divided into those who care about logic and those who don't (and can therefore favour CLL Lojban), those who care about logic are in turn divided into those who want to make the minimum changes to CLL Lojban to sort out the logical issues and those who think that if you're going to make any changes at all then you might as well fix some of the most egregious design flaws in order to make the language much more user-friendly. Essentially the two positions weigh the effort invested by the few people who have learnt CLL thoroughly against the much larger but more hypothetical number who might learn and use Lojban in future.
> is not complete,
I agree and would like to help complete it.This is the job of the BPFK, but not much progres is visible from that group.In my view, xorxes and selpahi should simply define bodies of candidate new rules and changes and the rest of the BPFK or community or LLG should vote on them by some suitably intelligent voting method. You could make it more democratic by allowing anyone to submit proposed changes, but I would be inclined to vote for exactly whatever xorxes and selpahi propose. Those innovations elected would be deemed to supersede CLL where there is incompatibility. And then textbook writers can write it up. Admittedly, that already happened for xorlo, but nobody has yet textbooked it.--And.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas would break up many things (thus forcing to "re-learn" when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clues on this?How do 2.3. necessarily conflict with 1.?
There are several levels of deviation from CLL: https://jbotcan.org/lojban/en/dialects/ (which ignores internal conflicts of CLL, which is your group 2.).E.g.krtisfrank's connectives are a Dialect, type 2.xorxe's connectives are probably a Dialect, type 3.solpahi's connectives are a Dialect, type 4.
And, you told that there are 3 groups. If I rephrase:
- CLL 1.1 "purists", who want to "throw away" what has been learned
- The ones who want to "bug fix" CLL regarding to logic.
- The ones who want to "upgrade" CLL.
It is not clear to me if 2nd and 3rd ideas would break up many things (thus forcing to "re-learn" when having learned CLL 1.1), or only details. Somebody has clues on this?(And yes, each potential change would have to be evaluated on that question.)Aside from that, I feel that the 2nd and 3rd group should agree to perform first common steps altogether. Isn't it the case? If not, why?la .sykyndyr.
I'll answer more in detail soon, but in the meantime, can you tell us more about "Group 3 consist[ing] of some incompatible groups"? Which subgroups, actually?
ki'e
la .sykyndyr.
2. Not all modifications to the grammar were put for voting.
Examples:2.1. {broda be ba brode}(discussion from 2016-02-23 to 2016-04-06)It becomes ungrammatical under the agreement 1.2 above.The proposal of making it grammatical again by modifying some parts of the grammar was not accepted by some people including me, and the discussion stopped without voting.
It seems groups are much fuzzier than expected. Individual may accept to:
- Improve, non backward-compatible way (= anything)
- Bug-fix, non backward-compatible way
- Improve, backward-compatible way (including additions)
- Do nothing at all
These choices may apply to logic and grammar, leading to 4^2 = 16 possible combinations, even though some combinations are highly improbable and some others contain simply very few people (as la .guskant. said about former "group 2"). If we add "semantics" to logic and grammar, we get to 4^3 = 64. And if we add "No idea on the topic" as a choice, we got 5^3 = 125.And inside some combinations, we find people in favor of X or Y proposition (Zasni Gerna of Xorxes, Solpahi's connectives, Zantufa...). which increases again the number of cases.(Please note that I did not add "Bug-fix, backward-compatible" because from what I read, it seems merely impossible (correct me if I'm wrong). Else we'd have 6^3 = 216.)So better not trying to but people in 3 "labeled compartments", I guess! That leads me to the conclusion that submissions must be evaluated on a per-case basis, with a stable and well-known evaluation grid.***Now about organizations.I feel like the separation between BPFK and the GIT repositories maintained by the Coders' Group is nonsense (from an pure organizational point of view). I foresee multiple possible outcomes:
- Nothing changes: BPFK discusses/votes things that will never be included, and the Coders' Group include things that will never be discussed/voted. Lojban dies.
- Pure schism: each group "wakes up" (=becomes more active) and decides to build its own language. What will emerge is unclear to me. One sure thing is that the small community will be split into two (or more) weaker ones.
- Put in common:
- By cooperation: groups (or some members) agree to work together (or merge) with proper means, common rules and common tools. That requires adhesion and (good) tools.
- Cooperation may happen with renewal: groups may agree to create a new entity with new (or updated) rules.
- By dissolution: one group may simply dissolve, leaving the other one the only "official". I personally think this is dangerous because we surely need the point of view of everybody.
- By forcing: One group may force the other to accept its own way to work. The most obvious case would be preempting ("pull the rug out to"): BPFK could fork repositories and tag them as "BPFK Official" or whatever. This is unfair, but perfectly legal.
Of course, cases may be partial and mixed: some members may join the other group, while other create a new entity or a new language, etc. I just hope people won't be dumb enough to create a worse situation.(The terms you were looking for are "compromises" and "trade-off"... ;-) )That leads me to the conclusion that submission protocol/rules are to be proposed, discussed and accepted by a wide range of people. I won't enter pure language discussions, as I don't feel legitimate for this. But I'll try to propose solutions to help about rules and protocols. Any idea is welcome of course.la .sykyndyr.
I prefer 3, "putting in common by cooperation". However, the Lojban Coders' Group seems to have no rule, and each member of the group behaves as he likes. Some of them are already inactive. Even if the BPFK decides to make contact with the Lojban Coders' Group, they will not be able to reach an agreement of the whole group.
I once tried the similar action as "putting in common by forcing" by posting a motion to the LLG meeting. [...]
That motion was implicitly seconded by Gleki (he agreed to a method that requires the motion being adopted, but made no comments on the motion itself), and not opposed by Curtis Franks, but the meeting was forcedly closed without any discussion or voting.
The LLG meeting thus died. I will try again the similar motion on the current LLG meeting, but it is likely to be ignored again guessing from their behavior to my past motions. I may try the BPFK meeting to discuss your analysis, even though it is also dying.
ki'e sai la sykyndyr
- Anyone authenticated (= registered somewhere) can create a draft and discuss about existing ones.
- Once the draft seems okay enough, anyone authenticated can flag it as "okay, let's call the experts to review this".
- Only "experts" (to be defined, I guess) can "validate" the proposal.