Lojban Versions and Change Scripts

[18:17] <dbrock-> someone recently proposed we change the meaning of {y'y}
[18:17] <vensa> it was I :)
[18:18] <dbrock-> which is another interesting idea that becomes a complete waste of time when you actually suggest it for real
[18:18] <vensa> dbrock: y?
[18:18] <vensa> was there not a "big rafsi reallocation"?
[18:18] <dbrock-> might as well run for president
[18:18] <vensa> change happens!
[18:18] <vensa> stop being such a stick in the mud
[18:18] <dbrock-> yeah, I guess I'm a pessimist
[18:19] <vensa> what do you think about my version-scripting system?
[18:19] == Arla [~Niddler@c80-216-150-41.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #lojban
[18:19] <dbrock-> I haven't heard anything about it
[18:20] <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"
[18:20] <vensa> lojban could keep being developed, and CHANGED, according to usage and what proves most useful as we gain more speakers and speaking experience
[18:21] <UukGoblin> vensa, and pre-xorlo would be what? 0.1-beta3? ;-)
[18:21] <vensa> the obvious problem with this is that documents written in "lojban 1.0" may have a totally different meaning under "lojban 3.0"
[18:21] <vensa> uuk: I wanted to say that . yes.
[18:22] <vensa> that is where the "script" idea comes in:
[18:22] <UukGoblin> vensa, I have a solution
[18:22] <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
[18:23] <UukGoblin> add a word that misparses straight away, that means 'The following is lojban version x1'
[18:23] <vensa> for example, in this case the script would be {paunai}=>{paucu'i}, and since {paucu'i} was previously undefined that is all
[18:23] <UukGoblin> that way, old interpreters / parsers will stop at the very beginning
[18:24] <vensa> uuk: yes, we also might want a cmavo that declares the version number
[18:24] <tomoj> impossible in general, I think
[18:24] <dbrock-> the conversion script sounds like a waste of time
[18:24] <tomoj> at least, required conversion scripts restricts the kinds of changes you can make
[18:24] <vensa> tomoj: challenge me
[18:24] <tomoj> s/required/requiring/
[18:24] <vensa> what cant be done in a script?
[18:24] <dbrock-> but a cmavo that indicates dialect or version? sure, that would be useful
[18:24] == kpreid [~kpreid@] has joined #lojban
[18:24] == mode/#lojban [+o kpreid] by ChanServ
[18:25] <tomoj> e.g. imagine trying to convert pre-xorlo to xorlo
[18:25] <vensa> I thought about it already
[18:25] <tomoj> you could, I guess, simply replace every {le} with {lo}, but..
[18:26] <ksion> doi la vensa ma smuni lo'u paucu'i le'u
[18:26] <vensa> but it probably requires a deep understanding of what xorlo does, which I dont :)
[18:26] <dbrock-> you could just use {bau ko'a} at the start of your text
[18:26] <vensa> ksion: the proposal is that {paucu'i} be the new "rhetorical question" and {paunai} changed to "answer follows"
[18:26] <tomoj> what I'm saying is that deep understanding is required, but not of the change, of the text you're trying to convert
[18:26] <dbrock-> {bau lo fadni} for standard Lojban, for example
[18:27] <mathw> which standard? when? :)
[18:27] <@xalbo> {le} is unchanged under xorlo, and {lo} only gains meaning. So previous text can be left unchanged.
[18:27] <tomoj> certainly not?
[18:27] <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}
[18:27] <dbrock-> mathw: I dunno, CLL/BPFK/whatever?
[18:28] <vensa> tomoj: you also need to think how you would translate pre-xorlo {lo}
[18:28] <tomoj> pre-xorlo {re lo ci bakni} needs to be changed, right?
[18:28] <vensa> and that also has a def under xorlo I beleve
[18:28] <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'
[18:28] <mathw> or something
[18:29] <vensa> yes
[18:29] == jey [jey@] has joined #lojban
[18:29] <mathw> translating to xorlo would require careful attention to the numbers of things, wouldn't it?
[18:29] <vensa> tomoj: {re lo ci bakni poi zasti po'o vi lo munje} :P
[18:29] <mathw> I believe that changes a bit
[18:30] <mathw> But I never understood non-xorlo quantities so I will refrain from further comment
[18:30] <vensa> IMO it CAN be done
[18:30] <mathw> oh it can sure
[18:30] <vensa> (the version script)
[18:31] <vensa> maybe there will be a small percent of innacuracy
[18:31] <mathw> .u'i mu bakni
[18:31] <vensa> but that's still better than nothing
[18:31] <ksion> vensa: i'e I like it.
[18:31] <soto> imo we should just leave it untranslated :p
[18:31] <vensa> and it allows us to "grow" with the times
[18:31] <vensa> and not be stuck in the mud becuz "someone 500 yrs ago decided it should be this and not that"
[18:31] <vensa> ki'esai ksion
[18:32] == rossi [~rossi@HSI-KBW-109-193-128-041.hsi7.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de] has joined #lojban
[18:32] <vensa> soto: ppl like rlp who have written 60K word essays wont like that their writings are no longer supported...
[18:32] <vensa> like windows95 :P
[18:33] <vensa> xalbo: whats ur opinion on the version scripts?
[18:34] <vensa> it seems to me fitting that lojban have version numbers. after all, it is mostly used by computer programmers :P
[18:35] <@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.
[18:35] <@xalbo> version numbers seems useful
[18:35] <@xalbo> requiring a script for all changes seems to assume that we can agree on what things were, which is often the problem in itself.
[18:36] <mathw> And often a reason why a change is proposed in the first place from what I've seen
[18:36] <vensa> xalbo: true
[18:36] <vensa> so in places where there was no previous explicit meaning, we can maybe add a conversion comment
[18:36] <vensa> {to'isa'a na se djuno toi} :)
[18:37] <vensa> but think of all the rafsi that could be reallocated easily
[18:37] <vensa> and the cultural gismus that can be abolished and turned into fu'ivla
[18:38] <mathw> co'o
[18:38] <vensa> co'o mat
[18:38] <@xalbo> Those are both arguments *against* what you're attempting to do, in my mind.
[18:39] <vensa> hehehe
[18:39] <vensa> becuz YOU dont want to need to relearn stuff. right?
[18:39] <@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."
[18:39] <vensa> I knew youd say that :)
[18:39] <vensa> <3
[18:39] <vensa> xalbo: you are right
[18:39] <vensa> but think of the other hand
[18:40] <vensa> being stuck for ages with a bad choice of gismu or grammar, way after all those ancestral lojbaners have died
[18:40] <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?
[18:40] <vensa> xalbo: we can put it a standard that a change may only happen once in X years
[18:41] <vensa> uuk: lol
[18:41] <ksion> UukGoblin: ACKsai
[18:41] <vensa> xalbo: you could still talk in lojban1.0 with you lojban1.0 buddies :)
[18:41] <vensa> kinda like old folks speak yiddish
[18:41] <vensa> and dont know slang
[18:42] <ksion> <?lojban version="1.0"?>
[18:42] <vensa> :)
[18:42] <@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.
[18:42] <vensa> xalbo: a conversion script will also make sure that it is harder to change stuff
[18:42] <vensa> cuz you need to supply the script
[18:42] <UukGoblin> agreed, major changes might require interpretation, not just mere transcription
[18:43] <@xalbo> Right, and that's part of the cost.
[18:43] <vensa> but you wanted things to not change
[18:43] <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!
[18:43] <vensa> make upo your mind
[18:43] <@xalbo> And then arguing forever about whether your script is *right*, instead of just about the merits of the change.
[18:43] <vensa> soto: lol
[18:44] <vensa> xalbo: the scripting should be handled by a seperate "backoffice" department of the BPFK :)
[18:46] <vensa> btw: you guys didnt address an open issue of "how do we convert audio recordings"
[18:46] <vensa> but I am assuming that is equally as plausible, assuming we have a powerful speech-recognizer
[18:46] <UukGoblin> loi
[18:48]  * vensa fantasizes about lojban3.0 where {tel} would be the rafsi or {te} and {go'i} would switch places with {goi} :)
[18:49] == Wolvenreign [~david@c-69-136-176-250.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #lojban
[18:49] <@Broca> What would you change {go'a} to?
[18:49] <vensa> (and {a'y e'y i'y...} would replace the ugly {abu ebu ibu})
[18:49] <vensa> valsi go'a
[18:49] <valsi> go'a = pro-bridi: repeats a recent bridi (usually not the last 2).
[18:49] == Wolvenreign has changed nick to labnytru
[18:49] <labnytru> coi rodo
[18:49] <vensa> go'a could stay go'a
[18:49] <labnytru> I was wondering...
[18:50] <vensa> I just think that since {go'i} is so frequently used, it should be reduced to 1 syllable
[18:50] <labnytru> What would be a good Lojban translation for "infinite"?
[18:50] <vensa> valsi cimni
[18:50] <kribacr> I think ji'i?
[18:50] <valsi> cimni = x1 is infinite/unending/eternal in property/dimension x2, to degree x3 (quantity)/of type x3.
[18:50] <@Broca> Why do you think tel should replace ter?
[18:50] <kribacr> There's a number for infinitity. I know that much.
[18:50] <vensa> valsi ci'i
[18:50] <valsi> ci'i = digit/number: infinity; followed by digits => aleph cardinality.
[18:50] <kribacr> ci'i, sorry.
[18:50] <kribacr> Yeah, based off of cimni. Makes sense.
[18:50] <labnytru> Ah, thanks.
[18:50] <kribacr> I knew it was Ci'i.
[18:50] <vensa> broca: for aesthetic cohedrence: sel tel vel xel
[18:51] == Jantaro [~Jantaro@vl955-95.wireless.umass.edu] has joined #lojban
[18:51] <labnytru> Well, I've got good news.
[18:51] <UukGoblin> vensa, there was a reason why ter is not tel
[18:51] <@Broca> vensa: but you don't think go'a go'e go'i go'o go'u should be coherent?
[18:51] <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.
[18:51] <vensa> yes. because of stupid gismu for {stela}
[18:51] <labnytru> What does this mean to the Lojban community?
[18:51] <UukGoblin> you can't just go around changing everything for aesthetic reasons ;-]
[18:51] <labnytru> It means I'm going to come here and stay here once I'm prepared.
[18:52] <vensa> broca: that is a place where brevity trumps coherence IMO
[18:52] <vensa> valsi go'u
[18:52] <valsi> go'u = pro-bridi: repeats a remote past bridi.
[18:52] <@xalbo> vensa: strongly disagree
[18:52] <labnytru> I'll learn the entirety of the language and make this chatroom my "home".
[18:52] <vensa> broca: and {go'u} is not even in its right place in the series
[18:52] == MigoMipo [~John@84-217-9-246.tn.glocalnet.net] has joined #lojban
[18:52] <labnytru> brb
[18:53] <vensa>  <@xalbo> vensa: strongly disagree <-- about what?
[18:53] <vensa> (there, I copied this time :))
[18:53] <@xalbo> {go'i}/{go'a}/{go'u} follows the normal yow series. That leaves {go'e} and {go'o} for ad-hoc interpretation.
[18:53] <vensa> (it's hard for me to copy cuz my mouse is laptop-internal :()
[18:53] <@xalbo> vensa: I think breaking {go'i} out of the series is not justified by brevity considerations.
[18:53] <@Broca> But why stop there? If what you need is brevity, why not just do {go'i} → {.a}?
[18:53] <vensa> xalbo: cool. didnt think of it that way. thanks
[18:54] <vensa> broca: that diff seems smaller than the diff between 1 and 2 syllables
[18:55] <@Broca> So you seriously think swapping {goi} and {go'i} could be done?
[18:55] <vensa> xalbo: but it is justified to break a series for stupid rafsi considerations???
[18:55] <vensa> broca: why not? everything is possible
[18:55] <@Broca> That is not funny. GDIAF.
[18:56] <vensa> ki'a GDIAF?
[18:56] <@xalbo> "everything is possible": Not in my Everett branch!
[18:56] <vensa> huh?
[18:56] <@Broca> http://www.google.com/search?q=gdiaf
[18:56] <vensa> not familiar with everet
[18:56] <@xalbo> http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Everett_branch
[18:57] <vensa> broca: I dont understand the motive for your hostility. u'i
[18:57] <vensa> si
[18:57] <vensa> u'u
[18:57] <vensa> (my finger slipped)
[18:57] <vensa> xalbo: oh. multiverse
[18:58] <vensa> you guys are like the two grumps in the muppets :)
[18:58] <vensa> thats cute
[18:58] <@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.
[18:58] <@Broca> xalbo: why do we always come here?
[18:58] <vensa> .u'i
[18:59] <@xalbo> Broca: I just enjoy seeing the curtain close at the end.
[18:59] <vensa> xalbo: fair enough
[18:59] <@Broca> Ha ha ha ha!
[18:59] <vensa> but with my scripting system, it may be possible to change without upsetting the system too much
[18:59] <@Broca> (Your line is “I guess we'll never know”, by the way)
[18:59] <vensa> .u'isai doi mapets

Created by vensa. Last Modification: Monday 11 of October, 2010 17:37:39 GMT by vensa.