[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 05:19 PM 12/22/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >Nick: > > > > [ I didn't read the whole message. I've been spending (wasting) > > > > too much time with jboske crap, which is currently quite a bit too > > > > tinkeringish for my taste. So no other response here. ] > > > > > > Respected. The accusation of tinkeringness is valid if the main > > > disputants are willing to sacrifice continuity (And and Jorge, consider > > > yourselves tarred :-) ). But that the current system *is* a mess, that > > > I believe is still clear. So we'll get back to you once the ontology > > > settles > > > >The best way to avoid sacrificing continuity is to leave the mess > >exactly as it is > > Yes, but that does not get a dictionary written The dictionary entries for the mess could be written by the people who understand it. I observe that you and Jordan, the two defenders of lojbanmasses, have just posted apparently contradictory messages about mei. So one solution would be to treat mei as polysemous. I imagine that most jboskeists wouldn't be interested in working on a dictionary that simply tries to document the mess, but such a dictionary ought to satisfy those who don't want to sacrifice continuity. > >People who want to avoid mess could then argue > >for new unmessy cmavo. I can at least respect that position as > >ideologically consistent, even if I prefer a different course for > >Lojban > > > >But this idea of "We must fix the mess but avoid sacrificing continuity" > >is highly subjective > > "Fixing the mess" is required if we cannot write an acceptable dictionary > definition, or if there are multiple contradictory definitions in play, > because one of the Lojban rules is avoidance of polysemy > > >Fixing the mess by changing the baseline necessarily sacrifies continuity, > > which is why we want to be very careful about where and when we change the > baseline > > >and it becomes a matter of fine > >and subjective judgment which baseline changes sacrifice the most > >continuity > > Of course. No one ever said that the byfy would be an objective system of > resolving disputes > > >By all means, let's vote on proposals and let our individual votes > >be informed by our subjective judgments about which changes most > >sacrifice continuity. But it's not on to advocate sacrificing > >continuity and then brand your dispreferred proposal as the sacrifier > >of continuity > > Any and all arguments are in order, if they lead to consensus. Consensus > in this case means convincing lojbab and Jordan (and who knows who else has > volunteered), and not just Nick > > The discussions we are having are NOT aimed at the "voting", but at the > consensus building that will be necessary whenever the vote will be divided > (as seems likely in this case), since consensus is not "majority rules" How can consensus develop when one person's judgements are conditioned by such different factors from another's? In particular, there are some of us who prefer things continuous with the past even if kludgey, while there are others who prefer things elegant even if not continuous with the past. It seems to me that the only way consensus can emerge is for there to be enough of a poll for it to be clear what the majority view is and for the minority to acquiesce. That is what happened with the original academyless baseline freeze and now with the emergence of the BF. More generally, consensus can emerge on relatively rational issues, such as the range of meanings that we want Lojban to be able to express. But on more ideological issues, such as how those meanings are to be expressed, there is no truly consensual solution waiting to be discovered, and the solution has to the one that the greatest number of people are least unhappy with. --And.