BPFK: Old lerfu forming cmavo

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Shepherd volunteer
    subject: Shepherd volunteer
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-04-28 12:05:12
  post_text:

Request to shepherd this paradigm.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Shepherd volunteer
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-04-28 12:08:35
  post_text:

You got it. All hail.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Descriptive record
    subject: Descriptive record
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-08 14:21:46
  post_text:

The relevant part of the CLL for lerfu-forming cmavo is chapter 17, specifically, sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 14. I find no internal contradictions in the text, and its completeness is satisfactory, except for a small concern about alphabet and font shifts, which I will return to shortly.

The words in this paradigm has seen almost no use outside the language definition materials. This probably is because they are related to spelling, which is a predominantly oral activity. (Finding occurrences of "aitch" in an English corpus this small would probably give similar results.) It is perhaps worth mentioning that I discovered the members of LAU, TEI and FOI on a Wiki page titled "Cmavo that are a ghastly waste of precious monosyllabic cmavo space"...

However, I'm happy to report that "boi" is being used, and always correctly. Some examples:

http://www.lojban.org/texts/translations/alice/alice_7.html http://www.lojban.org/texts/translations/alice/alice_9.html

The Book does not say explicitly how far the alphabet shift (zai and friends) and the font shift lasts. Presumably, it must last for more than one letter, because of the existence of the font-and-alphabet shift cancelling cmavo "na'a" (p 418), and the illustration on p 412 ("zai xanlerfu bu ly .obu jy by .abu ny.").

Since there is a possibillity of specifying categories such as font face and text size separately (according to examples 5.5 - 5.7), I have assumed that the intention is for the ce'a shift to take effect until another ce'a shift is applied to the *same category*. My cmavo definition of ce'a reflects that. I will leave it to the shepherd of BY to take care of the other cmavo that act similarly.

Proposed dictionary entries:

boi: Terminates a letteral sequence or a numeral.

bu: Combines with the previous word to make a Lojban letteral, provided that it is not one of the quote cmavo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one of the erasure cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAhE or FAhO. If the aforementioned previous word is already a letteral, the resulting letteral will not necessarily be the same.

ce'a: Converts the following lerfu to a font change letteral; the font change applies to all following letterals until the next font change that contradicts the current font, or the end of the sequence.

foi: Marks the beginning of a combination letteral; the resulting letteral is some unspecified (lexically defined) combination of all the enclosed letterals.

lau: Converts the following letteral to punctuation.

tau: Converts the following letteral to uppercase.

tei: Marks the end of a combination letteral; the resulting letteral is some unspecified (lexically defined) combination of all the enclosed letterals.

zai: Marks the following letteral as an alphabet shift.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Descriptive record
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-05-11 12:30:13
  post_text:

doi tsali, my commendations on your record. I have some things I want to ask about, but please don't take this as second-guessing.

There were some issues I'd raised in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/17554 , which I'd like to be addressed.

1. lau

The opinion that lau and tei are a "ghastly waste of space" is not unique to And, and indeed I am already looking to {lau} with intent (because of the changes to be proposed to the gadri system). So:

I would like the case to be made explicitly pro and con the retention of {lau} as a cmavo. To be honest, even after Bob's response ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/17692 ), I don't see why it is necessary to mark punctuation explicitly with another cmavo --- or that this is so premium a task as to need a single syllable. The common punctuation signs of the Latin script are a fairly small set, and any naming of particular letters as punct sounds to me more like a job for a metalinguistic comment than something repeated in the text. In particular, are we expecting cases where the one character can be used both as punctuation and as not?

  • I don't consider apostrophe/single quote a legitimate instance of this: that's a merger of two conceptually distinct characters, which have their own Unicode codepoints.
  • The Lojban-specific use of comma and dot as letters is something that remains consistent within Lojban; the fact that you're switching to English or whatever is enough to signal that the characters change status from punct to alphabetic.

CLL claims lau is needed to signal the function of nonce punctuation words. Since the repertoire of punct signs in the world's scripts is relative small *and stable*; since we already have a fair few terms defined in http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Keyboard%20key%20names ; and since the definitions are going to be stable in a text, so that they can equally well be given in an initial metalinguistic comment, I don't see the point of this at all.

I'm having a hard time thinking when using {lau} would make any difference anywhere. I need to see a context where it must be used. If I can't be shown one, I would like a vote on its abolition (or deprecation).

2. tei/foi

I also argued in the above mailing list post that I don't believe there is a compelling reason for tei and foi to exist at all, and ligatures should be treated as separate letters or with a new nonce BU word, with a well-defined naming scheme (or even not.) I won't insist on this; but I do want a ruling on whether Lojban should have a default position for diacritics, which would make much of tei/foi unnecessary. Would making diacritics postposed in Lojban --- thus, .ebu .akut.bu, rather than tei .ebu .akut.bu foi --- be a violation of cultural neutrality? Perhaps, but this is how Unicode works, which is a standard to stay; and I don't actually know of languages which read out the diacritic before the letter, wherever it occurs. In any case, this too can be settled metalinguistically or by convention: once we know which lerfu are the diacritics, and whether the author is consistently putting them before or after their matrix, I don't see a reason for using tei/foi to enclose them.

3. Fixing conventions

Much of how lerfu would actually be used, particularly with the more 'exotic' scripts, is underspecified in CLL. I think setting down further guidelines (which CLL itself says are yet to be established) is a legitimate task for the BPFK. Yes, I did author http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/names%20of%20lerfu%3A%20letter%20plus%20script (which is on topic here since it involves BU), and no, noone has to use it. Furthermore, yes, this is more a dictionary issue than a grammar issue. But I still think this is worth looking at systematically; if not now by us, then when?

The issues with these cmavo that CLL leaves open (some of which are more matters for an enthusiast with cmene) are:

  • Do . and , in non-Lojbanic writing need separate names from the Lojbanic denpa.bu and slaka.bu?
  • What are the standardised zai words for scripts outside of Lojban's Europe/Middle East defaults? (This is a task of going to the Unicode Standard, snarfing the block names, and forming Lojban cmene of them that aren't too stupid.)
  • What are some standard ce'a words? What is the standard Lojban for boldface, italic, boldface italic, monospace, underlined, superscript, subscript? Is the ce'a ... bu model robust enough to handle all it will be asked to? What about nesting of formatting --- is it acceptable if Lojban indicates these merely by state-machine? does ce'a superskript.bu cancel ce'a italik.bu ? And if not, how do we cancel the superscript but not its enveloping italic? It looks like we'll need plain versions of all ce'a lerfu: normal vertical position, un-underlined, normal horizontal spacing...
  • How do we deal with characters with double or more accents? (p. 419 CLL) For instance, how is Classical Greek or Vietnamese spelled out in Lojban: is there a default order? (It seems to me there is a sensible such order: closer to further from the character. Since diacritics are defined as belonging to a certain position on the letter, I don't see that it needs to be any more complicated than that; at most, L before R for LtoR scripts, UtoD for scripts written downwards rather than upwards. Unicode really hasn't found this to be a problem.)
  • (For BY1, but related): How is the reference computer code for se'e specified? (Presumably this is yet again a matter for a metalinguistic comment.)
  • Although Arabic is one of the 5 predefined letter shifts for Lojban, there is no proposal for lerfu words for it in CLL.

Arnt, you certainly don't have to do any of this --- it's not strictly in your purview; but it is the kind of thing I'd like to see done.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Descriptive record
    subject:
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-18 07:19:25
  post_text:

Nick, thanks for your kind comments. I will address most of them in due time. However, with your permission as the BPFKJ, I defer the resolution of the issue of nesting of formatting to the coming shepherd of selma'o BY, since he or she will have the most number of words of this kind, in particular, {ga'e}, {to'a}, {lo'a}, {ge'o}, {je'o}, {jo'o}, {ru'o}, {lo'a}, {na'a}. I will, nevertheless, try to write something sensible about it, which the ba lidne can chew on.

You also mentioned a lot about standardization of names for alphabets, typefaces, and the like. This is arguably a matter for the fine folks over at Jbovlaste, or the coming Lojbanic typographers.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Descriptive record
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-05-21 22:38:59
  post_text:

OK by me. Deferral is always cool, although you will have to remember to chase it up with the other shepherd. Your offer to write something up is most welcome; I'd suggest the wiki or jboske, as usual, unless work on that paradigm has already started here.

We haven't adequately addressed the separation of labour between jbovlaste and bpfk yet; I agree it isn't your job to come up with standardised lerfu, but it is a job that needs to be done. When we're close to having a dictionary, we'll come back to it.

Nick, still recovering from flu, which is why he hasn't searched for mo'i in the corpus yet. ---


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-22 07:33:07
  post_text:

Fellow commissioners, please forgive me. I have done something very stupid.

The previous Discussion of changes in this forum (which I have now removed) proposed to remove the selma'o LAU. This would make sense if {lau} was the only cmavo of LAU, but this is in fact not the case.

Therefore, the relevant question to address is whether the single cmavo {lau} should be removed.

Current language {lau} is a cmavo of selma'o LAU. {lau} converts the following letteral to punctuation. Relevant text in CLL: pp 419-420

Proposed change The cmavo {lau} will be unassigned. Punctuation letteral will have their own, separate lexical entries.

Arguments pro

  • The word has apparently seen no use, which partially defeats the counter-argument that people will have to relearn things (which has been the foremost motivation of the baseline)
  • It has a single-syllable word form, which might prove to be useful if new cmavo need to be created. This might actually get done, Nick is "already looking to {lau} with intent (because of the changes to be proposed to the gadri system)".
  • The world-wide set of punctuation marks is very small compared to the base lerfu, this is not the case with the ratio of capitals to non-capitals, as per {tau}. Indeed, many punctuation marks have already got names at http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Keyboard%20key%20names .

Arguments con

  • That {lau} has never been used, is no proof that not someone, somewhere, has learnt it by heart. We already have a precedent on this committee not to remove cmavo on the ground of under-utilization, cf. Descriptive Records 1 and 2 on General Negators.
  • That we have not as yet constructed punctuation on the basis of other symbols, is no guarantee that it will never be useful. I can think of the following example: if {xa bu} is 6, then {lau xa bu} is the start quotation mark (which is difficult to render here), which many typographers call "6-es".

 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject: Re: Discussion of changes: removal of {lau}
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-22 10:44:44
  post_text:
   The previous Discussion of changes in this forum (which I have now removed) proposed to remove the selma'o LAU. This would make sense if {lau} was the only cmavo of LAU, but this is in fact not the case.

Actually, it would make sense to remove {tau} as well, which has probably never been used. {tau} would be a good choice for {la'e di'u}.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject: Re: Discussion of changes: removal of {lau}
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-27 12:02:56
  post_text:
   Actually, it would make sense to remove {tau} as well, which has probably never been used. {tau} would be a good choice for {la'e di'u}.

I am willing to consider this too, but then you must give me some arguments. (I can think of many counter-arguments.)


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject:
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-27 12:50:01
  post_text:

The arguments for dropping {tau} are the same as those for dropping {lau} and the rest of LAU, i.e. they are occupying monosyllabic space for something never or hardly ever used or needed.

The argument for assigning it to {la'e di'u} (or perhaps to {la'e do'i}) is that this is a meaning which is used very frequently, so it could do with a shorter form. Also, this meaning is a second cousin of {ti}, {ta}, {tu}, so the form {tau} fits well.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-27 13:16:24
  post_text:

This is a followup to Jorge's suggestion in the topic "Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}" in this forum.

Current language {tau} is a cmavo of selma'o LAU which converts the following letteral into upper-case.

Proposed change {tau} is removed, and relegated to unassigned cmavo space.

Arguments pro

  • The word has apparently seen no use, which partially defeats the counter-argument that people will have to relearn things (which has been the foremost motivation of the baseline)
  • It has a single-syllable word form, which might prove to be useful if new cmavo need to be created.

Arguments con

  • That {tau} has never been used, is no proof that not someone, somewhere, has learnt it by heart. We already have a precedent on this committee not to remove cmavo on the ground of under-utilization, cf. Descriptive Records 1 and 2 on General Negators.
  • There are as yet no alternative ways of expressing upper case characters. Since the set of upper case characters is almost as large as the set of lower-case characters, it is infeasible to create new lerfu words or -bu compounds for each upper case letter individually.

 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: Re: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
   username: jkominek
  post_time: 2003-05-27 13:33:01
  post_text:
   * There are as yet no alternative ways of expressing upper case characters. Since the set of upper case characters is almost as large as the set of lower-case characters, it is infeasible to create new lerfu words or -bu compounds for each upper case letter individually.

ga'e?

But, yes, any proposal needs to include a treatment of how upper casing continues to work without tau. It can't simply be thrown away.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-27 14:46:43
  post_text:

tau is the shift key, ga'e is the shift-lock key. When ga'e is set, tau indicates lower case...

It's amazing that Lojban makes such a mess of the difference between naming and using. Capital letters are used in two (slightly incompatible) ways in Lojban: canonically to mark stress, and some people use them to stand for lerfu words, so that B represents {by} in the same way that 1 represents {pa}. Those are their uses in Lojban.

A different thing is how to name them, and it is not at all clear why there should be special pronouns to name capital letters. We don't talk about capital letters often enough that they can't be referred to with cmene, like everything else. Why do they need to have special pronouns assigned to them?

BTW, what is the difference between the third and fourth options in the poll? How could one use the half-veto if one is in favour?


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-27 15:23:58
  post_text:
   BTW, what is the difference between the third and fourth options in the poll? How could one use the half-veto if one is in favour?

If there are two or more No-votes AND two or more Yes-votes, there will be a new round of discussion, and a new vote. This will be repeated until consensus-minus-1 is reached. If there is one or zero votes for the minority stance, the issue will have been decided.

Unless I have misunderstood anything, in which case I call for the BPFKJ to correct me.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: uses of lerfu strings
    subject: uses of lerfu strings
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-27 16:18:28
  post_text:

How is the lerfu string {zai xanlerfu bu ly. .o bu jy. by .a bu ny.} used in a sentence?

Is it a pronoun, like other lerfu strings?

How does it relate to {zo lojban poi xanlerfu porsi}, which would be something like "'lojban' in hand-sign characters".


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: uses of lerfu strings
    subject: Re: uses of lerfu strings
   username: phma
  post_time: 2003-05-28 01:13:06
  post_text:
   How is the lerfu string {zai xanlerfu bu ly. .o bu jy. by .a bu ny.} used in a sentence?
   Is it a pronoun, like other lerfu strings?

Yes. To refer to the string of handshapes, precede it with {me'o}.

   How does it relate to {zo lojban poi xanlerfu porsi}, which would be something like "'lojban' in hand-sign characters".

That means "\"lojban\", which is a string of handletters", which doesn't make sense, since it isn't. I'd say something like {zo lojban pe bau loi xanle'u}; {bau} is wrong, but I don't find the right word.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Descriptive record
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-28 21:58:46
  post_text:
   The opinion that lau and tei are a "ghastly waste of space" is not unique to And

It should not be especially associated with me. I created the page, but did not compile the list it contains, & indeed am a supporter of dau/fei/gau. --And.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: voting choices
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-28 22:12:51
  post_text:

I have just voted Yes, because the poll speaks of "the word {tau}", which I take to be a pairing of a particular form with a particular function. Since I think the form should be reassigned, I voted Yes. However, I abstain on the issue of whether the function of {tau} should be removed. --And.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-28 22:15:37
  post_text:

I have just voted Yes, because the poll speaks of "the word {lau}", which I take to be a pairing of a particular form with a particular function. Since I think the form should be reassigned, I voted Yes. However, I abstain on the issue of whether the function of {lau} should be removed. --And.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: tau and lau
   username: fracture
  post_time: 2003-05-28 22:44:53
  post_text:

I've voted yes, because LAU sucks major ass (both the function and the form).

However, I most certainly will use my half-veto toward any attempt to assign any cmavo as a macro for la'edi'u. As I attempted to say in The Big Debate way back when, I'm for macro cmavo, but only after there's enough usage to say which strings of cmavo are factually the most frequent (read: in 50+ years, and only if lojban grows dramatically instead of dying).

(I would prefer using the lau stuff in the gadri system repairs, so I guess (strangely :) ) I agree with AndR on that. However I think they (and their grammar rules) should be removed regardless of for what or whether we want to reuse them).


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject:
   username: kd
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:02:19
  post_text:

Basically, I think the cmavo is useless. I can't decide whether that makes it our job to eliminate it, so I voted yes-but-no-veto. However, I will veto anything that reassigns it unless there is a compelling need for the new cmavo.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: kd
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:06:47
  post_text:

First of all, Jordan, there's nothing worng with agreeing with And.

Anyway, I'm in the YBNV camp, but again I will absolutely vote down any attempt to make a new cmavo in this space (or elsewhere) frivolously. I feel like there are only a few minor exceptions to the old the-language-is-done thing; we should fix those exceptions and bring the baseline in line with usage. Once we have done those things, we should not introduce new cmavo that haven't seen significant meaningful usage.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: Re: tau and lau
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:11:56
  post_text:
   I most certainly will use my half-veto toward any attempt
   to assign any cmavo as a macro for la'edi'u.  As I attempted to say
   in The Big Debate way back when, I'm for macro cmavo, but only after
   there's enough usage to say which strings of cmavo are factually
   the most frequent (read: in 50+ years, and only if lojban grows
   dramatically instead of dying).

I think the idea was not so much that tau would be a macro for a longer string as that it would be a ri-like anaphor that is coreferential with not the previous sumti but the previous utterance. It would just happen to be synonymous with la'edi'u, just as ri is synonymous with "la'e le previous-sumti".

I take your point about the 50+ years. That is, we need to wait till then to really know which are the best changes to make. (By which time it'll be too late?) But I don't think that takes away from the incontrovertible fact that tau would be much more useful as an anaphor than as the thing it currently is. I mean, if the BF can make one or two small improvements now, why not make them now? At least that makes things slightly better for the next 50 years...


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: fracture
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:18:14
  post_text:
   First of all, Jordan, there's nothing worng with agreeing with And.

I was joking of course; I probably agree with AndR on more than it usually seems like, since we so vehemently disagree on some things (e.g. IIRC he favors removing the formal grammar).

   Anyway, I'm in the YBNV camp, but again I will absolutely vote down
   any attempt to make a new cmavo in this space (or elsewhere)
   frivolously. I feel like there are only a few minor exceptions to
   the old the-language-is-done thing; we should fix those exceptions
   and bring the baseline in line with usage. Once we have done those
   things, we should not introduce new cmavo that haven't seen significant
   meaningful usage.

The changes needed to the gadri system are not frivolous. The situation with the gadri is pretty bad. Issues with gadri even seem to have unfortunately disenchanted me with lojban to an extent lately (mostly that basically everyone misuses even the comparatively well defined gadri; 'le' (this one is particularly misused when in front of NU) and 'lo' (this is frequently used when it should be le (or loi sometimes, depending on the clarifications needed to masses)---because people don't realize it's just shorthand for an existential claim))


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: Re: tau and lau
   username: fracture
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:23:33
  post_text:
   I take your point about the 50+ years. That is, we need to wait till then
   to really know which are the best changes to make. (By which time it'll
   be too late?) But I don't think that takes away from the incontrovertible
   fact that tau would be much more useful as an anaphor than as the thing it
   currently is. I mean, if the BF can make one or two small improvements now,
   why not make them now? At least that makes things slightly better for the
   next 50 years...

Yes, tau would be more useful as an anaphora. But tau would be more useful as basically anything other than what it is now. And if you want a macro, it'd probably be much more useful as a macro for ledu'u or lenu or whatever than as a macro for la'edi'u (which I, at least, hardly ever use). I support removing it because it is poorly used where it is (and the feature it is used for is dumb). But, while macros are better, they are a comparative waste when we could instead spend it for solving *real* problems (i.e. gadri).


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: kd
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:29:02
  post_text:

Jordan: I agree with you about gadri; that's probably the biggest thing in the fixing category. Let's discuss this in the gadri forum. However, I will still have to see that the specific change is worthy of getting the new cmavo. But the need for a new gadri doesn't enter in to tau consideration. I was mentioning it to discourage that line of reasoning, but maybe even that was a bad idea.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: fracture
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:38:16
  post_text:
   Jordan: I agree with you about gadri; that's probably
   the biggest thing in the fixing category. Let's discuss this in the
   gadri forum. However, I will still have to see that the specific
   change is worthy of getting the new cmavo. But the need for a new
   gadri doesn't enter in to tau consideration. I was mentioning it
   to discourage that line of reasoning, but maybe even that was a bad
   idea.

Ah, I agree then.

I only meant to bring up gadri whilst complaining about the la'edi'u bullshit. I think LAU, FOI should be removed on its own grounds, and failing that, that the forms lau, tau, and foi should be replaced with longer forms if people don't want to kill their functions for some reason.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: {tau} has been used
   username: phma
  post_time: 2003-05-28 23:53:12
  post_text:

in the AbiWord art-lojban.po file:

  1. . DLG_FR_MatchCase
    po/tmp/ap_String_Id.h.h:181

msgid "&Match case" msgstr "jundi me'o &tau"


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-29 12:44:01
  post_text:

Well, commissioners, we have a problem.

With currently 3 against the proposal, and 4 in favour, we have a split vote. What happens now, according to http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Mini-dictionary , is that someone makes their own counterproposal, and puts it up for voting.

Anyone wanting to be the devil's advocate can contact me, either on phpbb PM, or (preferably) e-mail. If nothing happens within a week, I will do it myself, since I am one of those who voted against.

And by the way: there are to be no further discussions in this forum. Take it to the Wiki or jboske if you have something that needs to be say. Can the owner of jboske please find out why I aren't receiving any messages from the mailing list?


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-29 14:46:15
  post_text:

Shouldn't we be voting on tei, foi as well?


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-29 15:07:44
  post_text:

I propose a new poll, asking for each of these cmavo (lau, toi &c.):

1. keep function, don't reassign form 2. keep function, reassign form 3. keep function, abstain on form 4. scrap function 5. abstain on function, reassign form 6. abstain on function, don't reassign form (loony, but you never know)

Maybe that will show where areas of consensus and disagreement are.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-29 15:11:18
  post_text:

arnt -- yr email address isn't listed in yr profile. Regarding Jboske, email me to discuss yr problems. But one reason why you mightn't have been receiving messages is that there haven't been any. --And.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-29 15:20:34
  post_text:
   Shouldn't we be voting on tei, foi as well?

Do you have any objections to the descriptive record? If so, please send me your counter-proposal with relevant arguments, and I'll put up a ballot.

(And please, everyone: if you disagree with anything in the descriptive record, let the shepherd know it right away, OK? The record has been up for three weeks now, and I've already submitted some of my dictionary writeups to Administrative Issues-> Definition Announcements.)


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-29 15:24:59
  post_text:
   I propose a new poll, asking for each of these cmavo (lau, toi &c.):

My decision, subject to being overruled by the BPFKJ:

No.

I believe that if a cmavo is important enought to be kept around, it is too important to have its form shifted around.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-29 15:26:27
  post_text:
   Do you have any objections to the descriptive record? If so, please send me your counter-proposal with relevant arguments, and I'll put up a ballot.

I have no objections on the description of their function. I meant voting about the reassignment of the form. They were always mentioned along with lau and tau as candidates for reassignment.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-29 16:27:17
  post_text:
   I propose a new poll, asking for each of these cmavo (lau, toi &c.):
       My decision, subject to being overruled by the BPFKJ:
       No.
       I believe that if a cmavo is important enought to be kept around, it is too important to have its form shifted around.

This is an unreasonable abuse of shepherdhood, since we know that not all of us share those beliefs, and you are denying us the opportunity to discover who believes what. It might turn out that you are in a minority of one.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-29 17:20:50
  post_text:
   There is not going to be polls about reassignment of form for cmavo.
       This is an unreasonable abuse of shepherdhood, since we know that not all of us share those beliefs, and you are denying us the opportunity to discover who believes what. It might turn out that you are in a minority of one.

I agree that it might be both interesting and fruitful to find out how many people believes what. But I think that your proposal is so unusual (or, should I say, progressive) that it goes beyond the charter of the BPFK.

If you still believe I'm wrong, start a discussion on Jboske, or ask Nick to arbitrate.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: jkominek
  post_time: 2003-05-29 18:22:41
  post_text:
   I propose a new poll, asking for each of these cmavo (lau, toi &c.):
      believe that if a cmavo is important enought to be kept around, it is too important to have its form shifted around.
         This is an unreasonable abuse of shepherdhood, since we know that not all of us share those beliefs, and you are denying us the opportunity to discover who believes what. It might turn out that you are in a minority of one.

Have you taken a look at the list of commissioners?

http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=13

I don't even think there is reason to believe that you've got a majority, let alone that Arnt is a minority of one. (Which is a possibility that we can definitely dismiss, since I feel that reassigning meanings to different forms is ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE, and, in fact, even beyond the scope of the BPFK. If it isn't broken, we need a hell of a lot more reason to go messing with it than I've seen demonstrated so far.)


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-29 19:18:22
  post_text:
   I propose a new poll, asking for each of these cmavo (lau, toi &c.):
       believe that if a cmavo is important enought to be kept around, it is too important to have its form shifted around.
       This is an unreasonable abuse of shepherdhood, since we know that not all of us share those beliefs, and you are denying us the opportunity to discover who believes what. It might turn out that you are in a minority of one.
           Have you taken a look at the list of commissioners?
           http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=13
           I don't even think there is reason to believe that you've got a majority, let alone that Arnt is a minority of one. (Which is a possibility that we can definitely dismiss, since I feel that reassigning meanings to different forms is ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE, and, in fact, even beyond the scope of the BPFK. If it isn't broken, we need a hell of a lot more reason to go messing with it than I've seen demonstrated so far.)

This is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be put to a vote as a means of discovering where opinions lie, and where exactly the areas of agreement and disagreement are.

The shepherd's job is to steer things towards consensus reasonably expeditiously, not to impose their own personal agenda. (Take that as a general point, not a reference to Arnt.)


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: Nick: adjudicate
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-29 19:29:21
  post_text:
   There is not going to be polls about reassignment of form for cmavo.
       This is an unreasonable abuse of shepherdhood, since we know that not all of us share those beliefs, and you are denying us the opportunity to discover who believes what. It might turn out that you are in a minority of one.
           I agree that it might be both interesting and fruitful to find out how many people believes what. But I think that your proposal is so unusual (or, should I say, progressive) that it goes beyond the charter of the BPFK.
           If you still believe I'm wrong, start a discussion on Jboske, or ask Nick to arbitrate.

My proposal is for a poll to find out the spread of opinion. Is that so unusual?

As for the options in the poll, which is why you rejected the poll, my understanding of the workings of the BF was that anything could be considered, the veto mechanism serving as a regulatory mechanism, and also as a way of short-circuiting fruitless debates.

So Nick: please adjudicate/arbitrate.

BTW, it would be pointless to start a discussion on Jboske as a means of trying to canvas the views of BF commissioners!


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: phma
  post_time: 2003-05-29 19:33:57
  post_text:
   Well, commissioners, we have a problem.
   With currently 3 against the proposal, and 4 in favour, we have a split vote. What happens now, according to http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Mini-dictionary , is that someone makes their own counterproposal, and puts it up for voting.

As I understood it, votes on proposals to make changes to the language take place on the Twiki, not here.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-05-29 21:45:26
  post_text:
   BTW, what is the difference between the third and fourth options in the poll? How could one use the half-veto if one is in favour?
       If there are two or more No-votes AND two or more Yes-votes, there will be a new round of discussion, and a new vote. This will be repeated until consensus-minus-1 is reached. If there is one or zero votes for the minority stance, the issue will have been decided.
       Unless I have misunderstood anything, in which case I call for the BPFKJ to correct me.

No, that is correct. I didn't click at first as to how demi-veto meant, but you are right.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-05-29 21:49:48
  post_text:
   I propose a new poll, asking for each of these cmavo (lau, toi &c.):
       My decision, subject to being overruled by the BPFKJ:
       No.
       I believe that if a cmavo is important enought to be kept around, it is too important to have its form shifted around.

By no means overruling, but: what And is referring to, I think, was an earlier proposal to substitute a word like {tau} with something like {tau'u} or whatever. what's implicit in that proposal is that the function is important enough to keep, but not important enough to have memorised, which I grant is kind of weaselly. (It may prove a necessary compromise down the track, but for now it's off the table, then.)


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: Re: Nick: adjudicate
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-05-29 21:58:33
  post_text:
   My proposal is for a poll to find out the spread of opinion. Is that so unusual?
   As for the options in the poll, which is why you rejected the poll, my understanding of the workings of the BF was that anything could be considered, the veto mechanism serving as a regulatory mechanism,
   and also as a way of short-circuiting fruitless debates.
   So Nick: please adjudicate/arbitrate.
   BTW, it would be pointless to start a discussion on Jboske as a means of trying to canvas the views of BF commissioners!

Oy. OK, let's chill.

Votes to find out what people might think, as prelims, can happen on phpbb.

Definitive votes to change Lojban go to twiki.

My own opinion (which I'm not feeling like bullying people on yet) is: everything can be voted on; the fundamentalist cause is bolstered all the more if a vote proves is, and the default if no agreement can be reached remains the status quo. With regard to the issue of reassignments, my own feeling is that reassignment is a possible compromise, but its premature to say anything about it yet.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: An apology
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-30 09:13:46
  post_text:

Well. It turns out that I have been misunderstanding the way votes happen in the BPFK all along. I believed phpbb polls were final, equivalent to Twiki polls. (I didn't create any Twiki polls, because I've forgot the Twiki password, and all polls seemed to happen on phpbb anyway). I even recorded {lau} as a removed cmavo on Definition Announcements, because the phpbb vote on it succeeded. But I was wrong, and I'm sorry.

This also means that I owe And and Jorge an apology. Their proposals were not nearly as dangerous as I believed. So, And & Jorge: I'm sorry. Jorge's proposal on {tei} and {foi} will be up expeditiously.

As for And's proposal: I would like to ask you to put up a poll like the one you outlined, but posed in a general way, on Meta-BPFK. Ie., it should ask "What should be done with cmavo that have seen little use?" If you get many votes on "don't reassign form" (as I think it will), it will save you making lots of little polls on {tau}, {lau}, {tei} and {foi}, & any other cmavo that you want to change.

Of course, if you insist, I will put up the exact poll you asked for right here on this forum.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 3: removal of {tei} and {foi}
    subject: Discussion of changes 3: removal of {tei} and {foi}
   username: arj
  post_time: 2003-05-30 09:27:18
  post_text:

Current language {tei} is a cmavo of TEI, {foi} is a cmavo of FOI. They mark the start and end of a compound character, ie. a set of characters that are combined to make one character. Note that this subsumes both diacritics, ligatures, and other kinds of modification.

Proposed change Both {tei} and {foi} are removed to unassigned cmavo space.

Arguments pro

  • The word has apparently seen no use, which partially defeats the counter-argument that people will have to relearn things (which has been the foremost motivation of the baseline)
  • We don't need this many pronouns in Lojban. The use of lerfu strings for spelling is inconsequential, since lerfu are too hard to distinguish in speech. In real situations, phonetic spelling would likely need to be resorted to.
  • It has a single-syllable word form, which might prove to be useful if new cmavo need to be created.

Arguments con

  • That {tei} and {foi} have never been used, is no proof that not someone, somewhere, has learnt them by heart. We already have a precedent on this committee not to remove cmavo on the ground of under-utilization, cf. Descriptive Records 1 and 2 on General Negators.
  • There exists as yet no other way of expressing compound characters, and to enable Lojbanists to talk about non-English, latinate characters, it would take word-creating efforth by Jbovlaste, or independent speaker innovation.

 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 3: removal of {tei} and {foi}
    subject:
   username: xorxes
  post_time: 2003-05-30 15:59:08
  post_text:

Expanding a bit on the arguments pro:

The main function of lerfu strings is their use as pronouns. We don't really need the wide variety of pronouns that compound lerfu and other lerfu niceties provide, given that ordinary lerfu already provide an infinity of potential pronouns.

To name characters, the proper word class is CMENE. It is not clear why characters should be named using pronouns. The best short names for the letters is the letter itself, so lab. lac., lad., etc. The vowels could be la .ab., la .eb., la .ib., la .ob., la .ub. and la .yb. The apostrophe could be la .y'yb. A possible name for Ø, instead of tei obu fi'u bu foi could be la ofi'us, for example. Coming up with {la .ofi'us} does not require more speaker innovation than coming up with {tei .o bu fi'u bu foi} does, since both rely on non-official conventions.

Spelling of words could go something like this:

   zo lojban lerfu mimpoi lal. la .ob. laj. lab. la .ab. lan.
   "lojban" is spelled L, O, J, B, A, N.

(See http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/mimpoi )

instead of using {me'o ly. .obu jy. by. .abu ny.} with some other predicate. (Which predicate, btw?)

Of course when spelling is actually needed, it is usually in noisy environments, so that letters should also have longer names for such cases.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: Re: An apology
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-05-31 08:59:07
  post_text:
   Well. It turns out that I have been misunderstanding the way votes happen in the BPFK all along. I believed phpbb polls were final, equivalent to Twiki polls. (I didn't create any Twiki polls, because I've forgot the Twiki password, and all polls seemed to happen on phpbb anyway). I even recorded {lau} as a removed cmavo on Definition Announcements, because the phpbb vote on it succeeded. But I was wrong, and I'm sorry.
   This also means that I owe And and Jorge an apology. Their proposals were not nearly as dangerous as I believed. So, And & Jorge: I'm sorry. Jorge's proposal on {tei} and {foi} will be up expeditiously.
   As for And's proposal: I would like to ask you to put up a poll like the one you outlined, but posed in a general way, on Meta-BPFK. Ie., it should ask "What should be done with cmavo that have seen little use?" If you get many votes on "don't reassign form" (as I think it will), it will save you making lots of little polls on {tau}, {lau}, {tei} and {foi}, & any other cmavo that you want to change.
   Of course, if you insist, I will put up the exact poll you asked for right here on this forum.

The role of the twiki hadn't registered with me, either, & -- tho I hesitate to say so for fear of provoking Robin's ire -- I couldn't find the twiki by means of guessing the url or looking in the to-me obvious places. Doubtless a lengthier browse through the main site would find me the way, tho.

As for the poll, I'll do what you suggest. I'll try to get it done this weekend, unless some technical hitch presents itself.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: Re: An apology
   username: rlpowell
  post_time: 2003-05-31 15:58:27
  post_text:
   The role of the twiki hadn't registered with me, either, & -- tho I hesitate to say so for fear of provoking Robin's ire -- I couldn't find the twiki by means of guessing the url or looking in the to-me obvious places.

www.lojban.org/twiki/

Granted the page isn't what it should be (you have to click the "get started" link).

-Robin


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: Re: An apology
   username: rlpowell
  post_time: 2003-05-31 16:31:49
  post_text:
   The role of the twiki hadn't registered with me, either, & -- tho I hesitate to say so for fear of provoking Robin's ire -- I couldn't find the twiki by means of guessing the url or looking in the to-me obvious places.
       www.lojban.org/twiki/
       Granted the page isn't what it should be (you have to click the "get started" link).

That problem is now fixed.

-Robin


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 3: removal of {tei} and {foi}
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-06-01 12:07:39
  post_text:

Further argument pro: the fact that a character is a compounding form can be expressed as metalinguistic information; this particularly applies to diacritics.

Outside of diacritics, the other case I can see of compound characters is ligatures; there is rarely if ever a semantic distinction between ligated and non-ligated characters, and that distinction can be relegated to typography, which is not in the first instance the concern of spelling out lerfu. (I'm thinking Unicode's ZWJ here, of course.)

Characters which may be regarded as compound in origin but which nonetheless constitute a single character, I would much rather give a brand new name. Remember that tei/foi predates the NAME bu mechanism, which I think such characters merit.

So e acute:: .ebu .akut.bu , rather than either {tei .ebu .akut.bu foi} or {tei .akut.bu .ebu foi}, with the convention that diacritics follow either hardcoded in the language, or metalinguistically specified.

\ae in Latin: .abu .ebu rather than {tei .abu .ebu foi}, since the distinction between unligated and ligated \ae is merely stylistic. Same would go, for instance, for Dutch ij.

\ae in Icelandic, where it is a distinct letter of the alphabet: .a'ebu. rather than {tei .abu .ebu foi}

In sum: I think the problems tei/foi claim to solve are now solvable by other means, and I also think that if we are to keep tei/foi, someone should say how these other means are inadequate. That little usage has been seen of any of this means, of course, there is a (somewhat) higher latitude for change here than elsewhere, since there is no body of supporting usage.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: counterapology
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-06-01 12:14:39
  post_text:

Apologies all mine; I've set up a cumbersome mechanism that has confused people. (The story is that we initially were overjoyed to find phpbb had polls, but they didn't have the flexibility that twiki polls do, so we preferred that. I do want to make the bug a feature: having informal strawpolls distinct from formal votes is a useful thing. I also wanted the twiki to house formal proposals as distinct from looser discussion on the twiki; Robin has correctly thought this needlessly complicated, and this may or may not fall by the wayside.)

I don't remember if I've specified this, but when the formal vote gets convoked on twiki, please allow a generous time margin for everyone interested to get around to voting. We're not in a desperate hurry here, after all. I'd suggest two weeks.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-06-01 12:21:41
  post_text:

As proof of the need for a two-week margin for votes: we now have two Nays, which means that the vote is derailed (or would be, if it was official :-) ). The advantage of the phpbb vote is that the votes are not anonymous. (You might think I'm joking; sorry, I'm not. I think knowing who supports what, and doing lobbying, is appropriate, as long as it doesn't get drawn out -- more than a couple of weeks again, say. And that it is always appropriate to ask the minority voters to justify their votes, though they cannot be compelled to. Jay, I think we already know where you stand. :-) )


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: Re: An apology
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-06-01 12:24:53
  post_text:
   The role of the twiki hadn't registered with me, either, & -- tho I hesitate to say so for fear of provoking Robin's ire -- I couldn't find the twiki by means of guessing the url or looking in the to-me obvious places.
       www.lojban.org/twiki/
       Granted the page isn't what it should be (you have to click the "get started" link).
       -Robin

Sorry, Robin. I could have sworn I'd tried that & got something else. (Blue text on white, with stuff about digitalkingdom & pointers to your own page; and on another try, just a generic non-lojban specific twiki help site.) But no problems at all now. (Not that I meant to be complaining about problems.)


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject:
   username: And
  post_time: 2003-06-01 12:31:16
  post_text:
   The advantage of the phpbb vote is that the votes are not anonymous.

I agree it's an advantage, but how do we see who voted what? To me, the polls *look* anonymous.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 1: removal of {lau}
    subject:
   username: nitcion
  post_time: 2003-06-01 12:38:27
  post_text:
   The advantage of the phpbb vote is that the votes are not anonymous.
       I agree it's an advantage, but how do we see who voted what? To me, the polls *look* anonymous.

Argh! Serves me right for posting at 1 AM. I meant, the twiki vote; it's the phpbb which is anonymous. The twiki pools too look anonymous (just listing the voters, not how they voted); but you can see how they voted by viewing the html source of the page.


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: An apology
    subject: Re: counterapology
   username: rlpowell
  post_time: 2003-06-01 15:46:25
  post_text:
   Apologies all mine; I've set up a cumbersome mechanism that has confused people. (The story is that we initially were overjoyed to find phpbb had polls, but they didn't have the flexibility that twiki polls do, so we preferred that. I do want to make the bug a feature: having informal strawpolls distinct from formal votes is a useful thing. I also wanted the twiki to house formal proposals as distinct from looser discussion on the twiki; Robin has correctly thought this needlessly complicated, and this may or may not fall by the wayside.)
   I don't remember if I've specified this, but when the formal vote gets convoked on twiki, please allow a generous time margin for everyone interested to get around to voting. We're not in a desperate hurry here, after all. I'd suggest two weeks.

And please post in the bpfk-announce mailing list when you do something important like create an official poll.

Please.

-Robin


 forum_name: lerfu forming cmavo
topic_title: Discussion of changes 2: Removal of {tau}
    subject: MEX uses of lerfu justify "tau"
   username: JohnCowan
  post_time: 2003-06-05 13:02:12
  post_text:

Lerfu cmavo are used not only as pronouns but also as MEX variables/parameters. In the latter use, case distinctions are important: g is the (local) acceleration due to gravity, but G is the universal gravitational constant. Muddling these up would be disastrous.