Lojban versions and change scripts

From Lojban
Revision as of 13:33, 24 December 2014 by Gleki (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
dbrock someone recently proposed we change the meaning of y'y
vensa it was I :)
dbrock which is another interesting idea that becomes a complete waste of time when you actually suggest it for real
vensa dbrock: y?
was there not a "big rafsi reallocation"?
dbrock might as well run for president
vensa change happens!
stop being such a stick in the mud
dbrock yeah, I guess I'm a pessimist
vensa what do you think about my version-scripting system?
dbrock I haven't heard anything about it
vensa my proposition is that the current lojban be dubbed "lojban v1.0" and the lojban after the bpfk is done will be "lojban v2.0"
lojban could keep being developed, and CHANGED, according to usage and what proves most useful as we gain more speakers and speaking experience
UukGoblin vensa, and pre-xorlo would be what? 0.1-beta3? ;-)
vensa the obvious problem with this is that documents written in "lojban 1.0" may have a totally different meaning under "lojban 3.0"
uuk: I wanted to say that . yes.
that is where the "script" idea comes in:
UukGoblin vensa, I have a solution
vensa every new standard version (which would only be released by the BPFK of course) will also have to come with a set of "scripts" or "algorithms" for converting the previous version of lojban into this one
UukGoblin add a word that misparses straight away, that means 'The following is lojban version x1'
vensa for example, in this case the script would be paunai=>paucu'i, and since paucu'i was previously undefined that is all
UukGoblin that way, old interpreters / parsers will stop at the very beginning
vensa uuk: yes, we also might want a cmavo that declares the version number
tomoj impossible in general, I think
dbrock the conversion script sounds like a waste of time
tomoj at least, requiring conversion scripts restricts the kinds of changes you can make
vensa tomoj: challenge me
what cant be done in a script?
dbrock but a cmavo that indicates dialect or version? sure, that would be useful
tomoj e.g. imagine trying to convert pre-xorlo to xorlo
vensa I thought about it already
tomoj you could, I guess, simply replace every le with lo, but..
ksion doi la vensa ma smuni lo'u paucu'i le'u
vensa but it probably requires a deep understanding of what xorlo does, which I dont :)
dbrock you could just use bau ko'a at the start of your text
vensa ksion: the proposal is that paucu'i be the new "rhetorical question" and paunai changed to "answer follows"
tomoj what I'm saying is that deep understanding is required, but not of the change, of the text you're trying to convert
dbrock bau lo fadni for standard Lojban, for example
mathw which standard? when? :)
xalbo le is unchanged under xorlo, and lo only gains meaning. So previous text can be left unchanged.
tomoj certainly not?
vensa tomoj: I would ultimately replace every le with lo, unless it had a bi'unai after it, in which case I would make it le
dbrock mathw: I dunno, CLL/BPFK/whatever?
vensa tomoj: you also need to think how you would translate pre-xorlo lo
tomoj pre-xorlo re lo ci bakni needs to be changed, right?
vensa and that also has a def under xorlo I beleve
mathw dbrock: just pointing out that the standard changes, so you can't just say 'this is standard lojban', you'd have to say 'this is standard lojban as of the first of may 2011'
or something
vensa yes
mathw translating to xorlo would require careful attention to the numbers of things, wouldn't it?
vensa tomoj: re lo ci bakni poi zasti po'o vi lo munje :P
mathw I believe that changes a bit
But I never understood non-xorlo quantities so I will refrain from further comment
vensa IMO it CAN be done
mathw oh it can sure
vensa (the version script)
maybe there will be a small percent of innacuracy
mathw .u'i mu bakni
vensa but that's still better than nothing
ksion vensa: i'e I like it.
soto imo we should just leave it untranslated :p
vensa and it allows us to "grow" with the times
and not be stuck in the mud becuz "someone 500 yrs ago decided it should be this and not that"
ki'esai ksion
soto: ppl like rlp who have written 60K word essays wont like that their writings are no longer supported...
like windows95 :P
xalbo: whats ur opinion on the version scripts?
it seems to me fitting that lojban have version numbers. after all, it is mostly used by computer programmers :P
xalbo think a lot of the work is figuring out what (if anything) old versions actually meant. And much of the changes are fixing that. So I don't think we can necessarily convert.
version numbers seems useful
requiring a script for all changes seems to assume that we can agree on what things were, which is often the problem in itself.
mathw And often a reason why a change is proposed in the first place from what I've seen
vensa xalbo: true
so in places where there was no previous explicit meaning, we can maybe add a conversion comment
to'isa'a na se djuno toi :)
but think of all the rafsi that could be reallocated easily
and the cultural gismus that can be abolished and turned into fu'ivla
mathw co'o
vensa co'o mat
xalbo Those are both arguments *against* what you're attempting to do, in my mind.
vensa hehehe
becuz YOU dont want to need to relearn stuff. right?
xalbo "Who cares if we fuck over the people who learned the language earlier? They can just apply this 300 line sed script to their minds, and all is good."
vensa I knew youd say that :)
xalbo: you are right
but think of the other hand
being stuck for ages with a bad choice of gismu or grammar, way after all those ancestral lojbaners have died
UukGoblin we could have 3-way handshakes to determine the version of lojban to use at start of a discussion! how cool would that be?
vensa xalbo: we can put it a standard that a change may only happen once in X years
uuk: lol
ksion UukGoblin: ACKsai
vensa xalbo: you could still talk in lojban1.0 with you lojban1.0 buddies :)
kinda like old folks speak yiddish
and dont know slang
ksion <?lojban version{{=}}"1.0"?>
vensa :)
xalbo I don't think a conversion script is necessary or sufficient to allow for unlimited changes to the language, and I am undecided on whether its utility outweighs its cost.
vensa xalbo: a conversion script will also make sure that it is harder to change stuff
cuz you need to supply the script
UukGoblin agreed, major changes might require interpretation, not just mere transcription
xalbo Right, and that's part of the cost.
vensa but you wanted things to not change
soto Having "number versions" for a language seems incredibly odd to me, but then I imagine a robot saying coi do. I speak lojban v2.35. Beep. and then I am tempted to change my mind because robots are so cool!
vensa make upo your mind
xalbo And then arguing forever about whether your script is *right*, instead of just about the merits of the change.
vensa soto: lol
xalbo: the scripting should be handled by a seperate "backoffice" department of the BPFK :)
btw: you guys didnt address an open issue of "how do we convert audio recordings"
but I am assuming that is equally as plausible, assuming we have a powerful speech-recognizer
UukGoblin loi
  • vensa fantasizes about lojban3.0 where tel would be the rafsi or te and go'i would switch places with goi :)}}
Broca What would you change go'a to?
vensa (and a'y e'y i'y... would replace the ugly abu ebu ibu)
valsi go'a
valsi go'a = pro-bridi: repeats a recent bridi (usually not the last 2).
labnytru coi rodo
vensa go'a could stay go'a
labnytru I was wondering...
vensa I just think that since go'i is so frequently used, it should be reduced to 1 syllable
labnytru What would be a good Lojban translation for "infinite"?
kribacr I think ji'i?
valsi cimni = x1 is infinite/unending/eternal in property/dimension x2, to degree x3 (quantity)/of type x3.
Broca Why do you think tel should replace ter?
kribacr There's a number for infinitity. I know that much.
valsi ci'i = digit/number: infinity; followed by digits => aleph cardinality.
kribacr Yeah, based off of cimni. Makes sense.
vensa broca: for aesthetic cohedrence: sel tel vel xel
labnytru Well, I've got good news.
UukGoblin vensa, there was a reason why ter is not tel
Broca vensa: but you don't think go'a go'e go'i go'o go'u should be coherent?
labnytru I've found an official tutor, and am currently in the process of setting up a website and doing some SEO so that my income will be taken care of permanently.
vensa yes. because of stupid gismu for stela
labnytru What does this mean to the Lojban community?
UukGoblin you can't just go around changing everything for aesthetic reasons ;-]
labnytru It means I'm going to come here and stay here once I'm prepared.
vensa broca: that is a place where brevity trumps coherence IMO
valsi go'u = pro-bridi: repeats a remote past bridi.
labnytru I'll learn the entirety of the language and make this chatroom my "home".
vensa broca: and go'u is not even in its right place in the series
xalbo vensa: strongly disagree
vensa {{{2}}}

about what?}}

xalbo go'i/go'a/go'u follows the normal yow series. That leaves go'e and go'o for ad-hoc interpretation.
vensa (it's hard for me to copy cuz my mouse is laptop-internal :()
xalbo vensa: I think breaking go'i out of the series is not justified by brevity considerations.
Broca But why stop there? If what you need is brevity, why not just do go'i.a?
vensa xalbo: cool. didnt think of it that way. thanks
broca: that diff seems smaller than the diff between 1 and 2 syllables
Broca So you seriously think swapping goi and go'i could be done?
vensa xalbo: but it is justified to break a series for stupid rafsi considerations???
broca: why not? everything is possible
Broca That is not funny. GDIAF.
vensa ki'a GDIAF?
xalbo "everything is possible": Not in my Everett branch!
vensa huh?
Broca http://www.google.com/search?q=gdiaf
vensa not familiar with everet
xalbo http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Everett_branch
vensa broca: I dont understand the motive for your hostility. u'u
xalbo: oh. multiverse
you guys are like the two grumps in the muppets :)
thats cute
xalbo I think -tel- would be a better rafsi for te than -ter-, if starting from scratch. I just don't think the difference is sufficient to be worth changing.
Broca xalbo: why do we always come here?
vensa .u'i
xalbo Broca: I just enjoy seeing the curtain close at the end.
vensa xalbo: fair enough
Broca Ha ha ha ha!
vensa but with my scripting system, it may be possible to change without upsetting the system too much
Broca (Your line is “I guess we'll never know”, by the way)
vensa .u'isai doi mapets