Re: la lojban zasni

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> My amended recommendations for managing change after the baseline:
>
> 1. Add a formal version number to the name of lojban
> <la papinomoi lojban> or <la pasosoxajoi lojban>
>
> "lojban 1.0 or lojban 1996"

[Those are not grammatical as they stand, you probably want
{la papinon lojban} or {la pasosoxav lojban}, or something like that.
You could also have {la papinomoi jbobau}.]

I don't think this is necessary, though. At least not yet. We have
no special name for pre rafsi-shift Lojban, and yet we manage well,
because the only Lojban that matters is the current one, even when
there are still texts with the old rafsi. If there is ever a significant
change then it would become necessary to have different names, but
I don't think we should start crossing the bridge until we get to
the river. Also, I would prefer not giving the language a name that
makes it seem like it's a computer language, since it is nothing of
the sort.

> 2. As part of the new version release, assure that there is a well-defined,
> nonambiguous translation algorithm from la papinomoi lojban -> la papipamoi
> lojban (or whatever). Thus all well-formed extant texts can be translated.

I wonder how you would handle "changes" such as the normalizing of the
use of {ri} in {le re nanmu cu prami le ri speni}. I expect most of the
evolution of the language to be of this sort, getting a clearer
understanding of already parser-grammatical Lojban. If rules of
interpretation vary somewhat, it will be extremely hard, if at all
possible, to "translate" from old texts.

> 3. Agree to a standard notation for lojban version specification; for
> example, at the beginning of an utterance, the version of lojban to be used
> could be specified.
>
> <.i ti gerna la papinomoi lojban>

I would prefer to simply include the date. Besides, this is a problem for
whoever is compiling the texts, not for the writer of a given text.

> 4. Emphasize that there will be considerable tolerance to experimental
> additions/changes to lojban among the lojban community. But these will be
> uncertified "slang" usages until & unless a broad and deep consensus builds
> as to incorporation of the "slang" into the latest release of lojban. Such
> changes will then be considered at the next meeting of the lojban academy

This is probably not needed. If a community of speakers does develop, then
usages will develop with it, with or without there being explicit tolerance.

> 5. Maintain a list of recognized problems in lojban. As solutions appear,
> propose them for inclusion in the next version of lojban. Maintain a
> specification of "proposed, but still under consideration"
> changes/additions/extensions as part of the formal definition of the
> language.

This must be done, of course. But most of the problems and solutions
will probably not require as much modification of the grammar rules,
as modification in how we interpret those rules.

> Perhaps John and lojbab are trying to do too much for the baseline. If we
> build in a mechanism for eventual revision, then it will be easier for them
> to get the first version done, as they will be less concerned about making
> everything optimal.

Of course, no matter how much we try, the day after the reference grammar
is printed we will discover something that should have been included and
wasn't. Also, I know already that I will disagree with some of the things
that will get printed. Whether eventually I will change my mind or whether
I will be able to persuade others of my point of view I don't know.

> Jorge, wouldn't my proposal assuage some of your concerns about "freezing"
> the language?

I'm not really all that concerned. I don't see how such freezing could
proceed, other than by forbidding people to use the language. People will
keep discussing grammar issues on the list because the refgrammar will not
have the answer to everything, and many people are interested in grammar
issues. Hopefully the amount of discussion _in_ Lojban will continue to
increase, as well. Maybe at some point it will become necessary to split
the list. But all this has no bearing on the publication of the
refgrammar, which should be done as soon as the authors consider it ready.
"Ready" here cannot mean "complete", because that will not happen in the
near future, if ever.

> If you are correct, then you and other speakers will adopt
> the slang you propose, and eventually they will be considered at the every
> five years lojban convention. I think lojbab should be the president of the
> convention, and that the academy should consist of (maximum) 15-20 people.

I would suggest that one of the rules be that the academy should deliberate
only in Lojban. That would probably be the most effective barrier to change.

Jorge