CLL 1.2. Technical

From Lojban
Revision as of 12:38, 27 August 2019 by Gleki (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Updating CLL 1.1 to CLL 1.2

The document listing proposed changes

CLL 1.2 for John Cowan (originally published here)

Here is the full text of the proposal passed at the meeting of the Logical Language Group and published at https://framateam.org/signup_user_complete/?id=17b4ir6u6by6px693dm8kmy7yw in "LLG Members Meeting 2018" channel:

Veto mode of updating CLL:
Premises: CLL should be updated quickly. Many mistypes were recorded 15 years ago or more. 2.5 years ago we were technically ready to merge them into the text of CLL. But still no updates to CLL
Proposed solution in short: a one-time job with most hard work delegated to Gleki, with minimum possible effort from anyone else. Gleki asks LLG voting members, John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and fluent speakers if a collection of mistypes is okay or not and after getting the feedback compiles a new version of CLL and presents it to LLG for verification and approval.
Proposed solution in detail:
the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit# contains a list of proposed changes. Text with green background  denotes additions to the text, text with red background denotes deletions from the text.

Any voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan, the author of the first edition of CLL, and any fluent speaker of Lojban can veto any of these changes by naming each of vetoed changes individually. In case a fluent speaker vetoes a change this vetoing must be done in Lojban and optionally in English by providing reasons why this change should not be applied. In case a voting member of LLG or John W. Cowan vetoes a change the member or John W. Cowan must provide in English their reasons why this change should not be applied. The replier must be informed beforehand that their replies with their publicly visible IDs, names, nicknames will be publicly logged by LLG for future reference.
Who is "fluent speaker of Lojban"? Any person who can speak grammatically correct Lojban and who can be understood by any LLG member who is a fluent speaker too. Veto mode minimizes possible scenarios when such a fluent speaker disagrees with a change to CLL but some malicious person pretends that he/she/ze/they don't understand that a veto was made. In  such cases any other LLG member or fluent speaker can translate the veto or even veto a change themselves instead of that person.

Changes are either vetoed or not. No change to the document is allowed (which means in future new documents may appear for amended changes but for this one-time job the document is final)
LLG waits for 2 months since the adoption of this proposal for any veto votes.
In 2 months in case at least one non-vetoed change is left LLG announces that changes are ready to be merged and delegates Gleki the right to merge exactly non-vetoed changes with exactly the changes provided in the document into CLL version 1.1 thus turning it into CLL version 1.2, and put a duty on Gleki to produce within one month pdf, epub,mobi, html versions of CLL 1.2 and within 6 months to produce (accepting help from Robin Lee Powell if provided) a paper version of CLL 1.2 using either existing LLG account on Amazon or creating a new account but providing the Treasurer and the President with all the credentials to such new Amazon account.
Once Gleki produces a new electronic version of CLL 1.2 he is obliged to immediately present it to LLG for official approval.
LLG approves or rejects the resulting electronic candidate CLL versions.
Approving the paper version of CLL 1.2 is out of the scope of this proposal (should physical copies of CLL 1.2 be sent to all LLG members? Highly unlikely and hasn't been done ever as far as i know)

le ve cusku (means of transferring veto replies): in case of LLG member this chat is okay. In case of fluent Lojban speakers any publicly logged and accessible to any LLG member means of communication is okay. Among those are:

#lojban, #ckule,#jbosnu Freenode IRC channels.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/
this Framateam Mattermost channel
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban
any page of mw.lojban.org
Non-formal procedures: anyone is encouraged to publish this proposal wherever allowed once this proposal passes.

Notice, the proposal passed on June 26, 2019 at 2:38 am UTC therefore the two-month period ends on August 26, 2019 at 2:38 UTC.

The list of veto votes

Veto 1

text:


I hereby veto the proposed change to CLL called "Chapter 11. Properly mark sumti-raising when using {jei}". Reason for the veto: it introduces a bug in the words "tu'a jei", which is ungrammatical.

I already added this veto to the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit#heading=h.7v3kwk2nll54 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit#heading=h.7v3kwk2nll54)

Veto 2

  • author: lagleki
  • date: August 5, 2019

text:


This text was posted to a Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/10156375425926705/?comment_id=10156466109061705&reply_comment_id=10156466320876705&notif_id=1564983469124811&notif_t=group_comment&ref=notif in reply to the last passed proposal to update CLL.

Curtis W. Fraŋks: I know that this is not the official forum for this, but I just want to record it somewhere while I have it ready:
• This one is fine, but update definitions in cmavo list: "lei ratcu poi zvati le panka cu so'umei lo'i ratcu"
I hereby veto:
• "Chapter 9: JC will think about it
Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e"." <-- (I think that "se" is fine. I am not sure what Example 9.9 is, because the labelling does not align properly, but we may need to edit that instead)
• "Chapter 11: JC OK (obviously)
Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --John Cowan" <-- (I think that "ka" is fine and "du'u" is erroneous)
• "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama" <-- (the "cu" is required)
• "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal <-- (vetoed until we resolve it; see below).
• "{o} is uttered like "o" in "choice”" <-- (I do want and approve JC's suggestion, for the reasons mentioned; thus, I also veto the original proposed edit)
• In "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary", there are several instances in which "a" is incorrectly changed to or written as "an" in the proposed edits; I veto specifically such "a"->"an" changes and further edit any proposed new text which incorrectly uses "an" instead of "a" such that "a" is used instead (if I am not allowed to make such latter edits, then I approve of the addition of the text - I would rather it be included and minorly ungrammatical than not included at all); this is a line-item veto and I do not veto the rest of the proposal nor amend it in any way (see below).
Approved, but preferring further immediate edits:
• "Lion exemplifies members of set #301 JC: “members” is vague in the suggested wording, make it “the members” instead" <-- (I accept the proposal but also prefer JC's version)
• "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary : JC says also to leave out “<secondary>proscribed where not required</secondary>”, which is no longer appropriate." <-- (Note that this is a grammatical change, not just a correction; but I approve it anyway)
Needs further review or resolve:
• "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal.
• "Chapter 17
Section 10. After Example 10.4.5, the reference to Example 10.4 should be instead to Example 10.4.5. JC OK
In section 13, the first paragraph states "Historically, these character sets have only covered the English alphabet and a few selected punctuation marks.", which is incorrect. There have been multitudes of character sets for writing systems other than the English alphabet.
[...] Change to something along the line of "Historically, each of these character sets has only covered a particular writing system.
JC suggests instead changing “Historically” to “Originally”, which is what I meant, and then dropping “have”.
I prefer John's wording. (.karis.)" <-- (I commented in the Google doc)

I have no confirmation that the user named "Curtis W. Fraŋks" is a member of LLG but I veto these changes on behalf of this person with the same wording.


One more post from Facebook:


Curtis W. Fraŋks I retract my last veto (about "a(n)" in the Chapter 4 stuff).

So I retract my previous veto on "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary" proposal.

Veto 3

text:


.i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
Chapter 9: Section 11: description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e". Therefore, delete the "se" here.
  .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi jinvi lo du'u zo se drani gi'e xamgu

.i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
Chapter 11: Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u
  .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi jinvi lo du'u zo ka drani kei .e lo du'u zo du'u narseltcu gi'a toldrani

.i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
Make it "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama" with optional "cu"
  .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi jinvi lo du'u zo cu tolzi'e seltcu 

.i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
Any sort of definitive choice about interpretation of "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" or similar
  .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu lo dausnu be ri na mulno

.i ca'e ga'i mi selcuxykemfitytoltu'i .ai lo zoi .glico. 
{.o} is uttered like "o" in "choice"
  .glico. selti'i ki'u lo nu mi lo nu lo selti'i pe la .ko,uyn. cu ca'irselzarbi'o kei cu djica gi'e zanru

.i li'a bu'o mi na selcuxykemfitytoltu'i lo zoi .glico.
Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary 
  .glico. selti'i pagbu

.i li'a bu'o ca'e ga'i mi je'a zanru .ai lo nu lo zoi .glico.
leave out “<secondary>proscribed where not required</secondary>”
  .glico. selti'i pe la .ko,uyn. cu ca'irselzarbi'o

ni'o mi'e .krtis. mu'o

I hereby veto the following proposals:
• "Chapter 9: JC will think about it
Section 11, description of the meaning of ".ije seri'a tu'e" contradicts the explanation of Example 9.9, which would suggest ".ije ri'a tu'e"." <-- (I think that "se" is fine. I am not sure what Example 9.9 is, because the labelling does not align properly, but we may need to edit that instead)
• "Chapter 11: JC OK (obviously)
Section 4: The use of ka in Example 4.4 (page 259) is erroneous; it should be du'u. --John Cowan" <-- (I think that "ka" is fine and "du'u" is erroneous)
• "le vi tavla [ku] [cu] ba klama" <-- (the "cu" is required)
• "pi pa ki'o pa re ki'o pa" proposal <-- (vetoed until we resolve it; see below).
• "{o} is uttered like "o" in "choice”" <-- (I do want and approve JC's suggestion, for the reasons mentioned; thus, I also veto the original proposed edit)

For clarity, I do not veto any part (or whole) of any proposal which concerns Chapter 4 and adding unnecessary hyphens to lujvo.

As an additional point (strictly speaking: not one which is part of this vetoing process), for clarity, I hereby also and separately express approval of JC's proposal about omitting “<secondary>proscribed where not required</secondary>” (as pertains to Chapter 4 and unnecessary hyphens hopefully-now being permitted) from the text of the CLL and express support for its official adoption, contingent on the adoption of the aforementioned change to Chapter 4; I can so move if desired/required at this time.

While only express mention of vetoes is required for this process, I do think that several other points should be addressed - as Gleki represented on my behalf yesterday.

Veto 4

  • author: lagleki
  • date: August 8, 2019

text:


I hereby veto the proposal titled "Chapter 4. allow adding hyphens in lujvo where not necessary" from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TjgmRNRraQ_W76Eh9XJfstCOaAunb7AqdjlTisxIaiw/edit#heading=h.o25n04v0xa5o document The reason for my veto: The text "y-hyphen between the consonants of any impermissible consonant pair. This will always appear between rafsi. It is possible to optionally add an y-hyphen between the consonants of any permissible consonant pair e.g. for stylistic purposes or for the ease of pronunciation." might imply that {y} can be inserted between consonants of a single rafsi which is probably not what is intended ({klagau} can become {kylagau} otherwise).