ro broda/ro lo broda

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

>
>la .and. cusku di'e
>
>> >John has made {re xirma} and {re lo xirma} nonequivalent in either one
>> >or two ways (they're different with respect to dogbiting behaviour
>> >("2 men bite 3 dogs" - how many dogs?) and possibly with respect to
>> >existential import.
>
>la djer. cusku di'e
>
>> djer:  Did I miss something about the installation of this vague change
>> in an era of five years of no change?  Maybe I should go to lojfest.

djan>
>
>The era of 5 years has not yet begun.

djer>
I guess that depends on who you are.  Lojbab is our president so I will
quote him:

lojbab>
There will be a final grammar rebaselining, probably when Cowan's refgrammar
is done, to incorporate those of his grammar proposals that are in the
refgrammar but not reflected in the baseline.  At the moment, the
baselined version of the grammar includes all changes through 2.33, with
2.34 and 2.35 approved.  2.36-2.40 are pending, and in most cases have
not even been seen by all relevant parties, but most are likely to be
approved, because in general Cowan has demonstarted a sufficient degree
of conservatism couple with mastery of the grammar, that he usually gets
his way.  I believe those changes would include some variety of 2 or 3 of
Jorge's X proposals.

djer>
For the rest of us it seems the freeze is in effect. My apologies to
lojbab if these quotes are out of context.

lojbab>

We are essentially already past the point where inclusion of changes
that substantially change the language can be made.  Indeed LONG past
the point.  We have had a grammar baseline in effect for 3 years now.
The first one failed and we rebaselined a year later.  That baseline has
held, with a minimal number of changes making it past the gauntlet since
then.  I contend that the time for debating changes that have
substantial impact on the language are past, and that we need to finish
documenting what we have and start using it.


lojbab>
Most pieces of the language ARE baselined.  By this we mean that ittakes
signififcant deliberation before any change is even considered.  Thus
all of these debates we've been having are purely hypothetical.


djan>
>I proposed tentatively the restoration of Loglan semantics:  "ro broda"
>means "ro da poi broda" rather than "ro lo broda", and "ro broda/ro da
>poi broda" and "ro lo broda" are distinct because the former has local
>scope (only over what follows) whereas the latter has bridi-level scope.

lojbab> [referring to stivn's proposal to make correspondences between
versions of lojban]

What if there isn't and cannot be, because of the nature of the changes?
(For example, a simple realignment of "lo" based on the discussions of
the last year or so would alone make this impossible - there IS no
algorithmic way to decide which gadri is to be used if the semantics
change.

djer>

I think the time is past for changes to be made by JCB, Lojbab, Cowan
or by cabal. Most of the changes so made have lead to obsessive
questioning by thinking lojbanists because they sense a problem in
these areas. A democratic process involving education of list and
non-list lojbanists, and plenty of time for deliberation, is the only
way the group wisdom can be harnessed. This is the way progress is made
in science, and it is the democratic way. The worst way there is,
except compared to all others.  People with a serious interest in
constructed languages will not be put off by this. They are buying
Windows 95 with full knowledge that it is not perfect.

In another post, John said:

> > My recent proposal that "ro prenu" means "ro da poi prenu" (and not
> > "ro lo prenu") restores the original pre-Lojban situation.
and>
> But hang on. The {ro prenu/ro lo prenu} distinction concerns the dogbiting
> issue. Now you're saying that {ro prenu} = {ro da poi kea prenu} &
> pc says the latter means there are prenu, so you're also making the
> {ro prenu/ro lo prenu} distinction do existential import too. Is that
> what you really want?
djan>
I don't care about existential import (but feel free to try to convince me
that I should).

djer>

I wish that I could convince you that E(x) baseline(x). And thanks for
all the wonderful and brilliant grammar papers, without which we would
have nothing to talk about changing. As for me, I'm not even going to
_think_  about changing lojban until there is a functioning democratic
process for change in place.


--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
djer