[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 07:42 AM 9/12/03 -0700, Jorge wrote:
la lojbab cusku di'e > Well, if the byfy ever gets around to doing its job, rather than > redesigning the language, we can consider it. Choosing clearer words to > define the status quo language is reasonable. (This is my brief answer to > And's byfy question re conservatives, BTW - I'm simply not that interested > in considering much less discussing what I'm willing to change in the > language design until I see some sign that the byfy is working to define > the bulk of the language according to the status quo.) I don't understand what you are asking for. Pierre, Arnt, Craig, And and I have taken up topics to shepherd and it seems to me we have all done acceptable jobs of describing the status quo for those topics. If you disagree, you should point out where we have gone astray. There are also some discussions going on in shepherdless topics. It seems that the main problem is that we have a shortage of shepherds to describe the status quo, not that we are discussing changes.
We don't need more shepherds; we need someone producing a product, which no one is. The byfy is nominally a successor to my failure to complete the dictionary, and they are replacing that failure altogether too well. Nick cited definition-writing as the primary job to be done; no definitions of any words have been written. I'd rather see fewer shepherds, actually writing definitions, rather than discussion in the absence of a focus on every facet of the language at once, which seems to be what people are advocating.
Liberally editing from Nick's instructions: http://www.lojban.org/twiki/bin/view/BPFK/GuidelinesForUsing* The shepherd has the responsibility of formulating the initial definition of the cmavo in the paradigm, of tracking all previous discussion of the cmavo, and of incorporating criticisms and any emerging consensus into the definition. In other words, they start, sustain, and end the discussion on the definition of the cmavo in the paradigm; that definition becomes their responsibility. ... * The shepherd authors a document on the Twiki for each cmavo in the paradigm. That document serves as the starting point for BPFK discussion, and is termed a definition page. The definition page starts with an elaborated dictionary definition of the cmavo, concentrating on the semantics. It then expands on the grammar of the cmavo, including how it interacts grammatically and semantically with other cmavo and selma'o. Where the shepherd feels a non-trivial issue in the semantics or grammar has not been brought up to date, they are free to include their own proposals in the document -- provided that the design principles of Lojban are respected. * For every issue where there is deviation from the existing baseline (and CLL in particular), or where the proponent is contributing their own innovation, that issue must be decided on by a <http://www.lojban.org/twiki/bin/view/bpfk/guidelinesforusing/twiki/bin/view/BPFK/Polling>poll among the BPFK membership. * Using the structure proposed in the <http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Elephant>Elephant, the rationale should be posted separately from the definition page. (As discussed below, they will currently not appear on the twiki at all, but on phpbb.) This means that: * the definition page becomes the Issue. (It presupposes the affirmative position for all positions raised, because the shepherd is writing the definition; but the definition page is understood to be a starting point for discussion, not an endpoint --- the shepherd will need to keep editing it.)
* the polling page becomes a Position.
* The rationales and counter-rationales pages become Arguments.
* On releasing the definition page, the shepherd makes a call on the
phpbb for arguments to be made on the Twiki, for each position raised.
* Once the discussion document has been posted on the Twiki, the
shepherd shall post an "executive summary" on the
<http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste>jbovlaste, as a brief definition. It will
be at the discretion of the dictionary editors to decide how much of the
BPFK work will end up in the dictionary proper, how much in a CLL
supplement, and how much online without entering into book form. The
shepherd is responsible for entering at least a bare minimum into
jbovlaste; if a choice needs to be made, the priority goes to the cmavo
semantics, rather than its grammar. Non-trivial examples should also be
entered into jbovlaste, preferably from actual spontaneous usage.
By and large, I see none of this being done. Rather, I see discussions of
proposed changes, most in a state of pre-formalization, when it states
explicitly that changes are a delta from the definition of the language
that is. Some amount of the discussion might pertain to alternate
interpretations of past usage, which might be useful in deciding what
should go into the definition, but nothing is conclusive, and nothing CAN
BE conclusive until the shepherd writes a definition page.
(Nick would probably prefer that this discussion be held on the byfy meta forum, so I'll stop here. Please feel free to answer, but if I feel a need to go on, I'll try switching it to there.)
-- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org