Antonio Fonseca | Stability
Rio, 30/04/06
ActiveSelective,
Me acorda con tu.
Me, me prope, ia fa ja non tro poca traduis, per la min, me ia atenta ja.
Si me no es capas de poner la min posable de la sentia de la autor en
la tradui, me para e no continui con el.
Non rara, esa ocure aora con LFN.
Me ia atenta ja proposar la cambias ce me ta nesesa per far un plu
bon labora. Unfelis, multe poca veses me ia ave ja susede.
Me pensa ce no es coreta far la traduis usante la forma nova ce me es
pensate e publicir los. Tan me para e espeta ce la cosas
cambia com la evolve natural de LFN.
Me pensa ce la corente altera [(?) (me pensa ce ta ave plu bon e
coreta parola per "version"; "altera" dise no cosa e causa confusa)],
es bastante para la comunica e parlada entra personas, ma non per
travalias plu elaborada. Como Stefan ia dise ja, un otra versa.
Salute
Antonio
= ================== mesaje presedente ========================== STABILITY =
> > ... I support some kind of public statement that the grammar
> > is not expected to change significantly.
>
>I am puzzled. Why may we say that? How can we say that? Where's the
>proof of this conclusion?
>
>Don't confuse "stable" for "passive".
>Stable means that the playground doesn't need to be changed in order
>to support the high number of diverse activities done upon it. Doing
>those activities proves the ground to be stable. Passive means that
>there is no activity and therefore no change.
>
>In the current circumstances of a only handfull of texts and
>passivity, I interpret this no-change-statement as: "We haven't been
>writing anything lately, we're not planning any texts either, or
>maybe never. Don't expect it. So don't expect grammar to be put to
>the test. To us grammar was just a set of first rules and we're not
>making it a living language. So don't expect LFN to change."
>
>What we really need is activity, written texts, proof of the
>stability. We need at least 200 substancial articles of any kind. We
>hardly have 30 now. When a language is not used, how can its
>stability be detected? Only the /intention/ of having a stable
>language is what remains. What's the use of publicly anouncing an
>intention?
>
>== WHO WAS FIRST? CHICKEN OR EGG? =>
> > The way to gain new users, especially users who are not already
> > in the conlang community, is to have a compelling reason to
> > learn a new language. The most compelling reason I can think of
> > would be that there would be material available to read. ...
> >
> > So, to gain lots of users, you must convince someone to create
> > lots of material. Those authors will be reluctant to write large
> > amounts of text if they believe the language will change in ways
> > that their work will become unreadable in the future.
>
>No. We are here already. We ourselves are the authors! We have to
>create, not wait for some future author to be first convinced of
>stability and then to write the articles for us.
>
>What we create will never "become unreadable". That is really an
>exageration gone over the top and off this planet. What you had in
>mind? LFN turning into Traditional Chinese or English? If LFN
>changes, the texts remain very readable. Work is never lost.
>
>Active authors know this. They know that texts can be upgraded
>easily and changes are small. They know their text will remain alive
>and remain readable in an active community. (especially in the wiki-
>infrastructure where everyone can join in writing, editing and
>updating texts) Editing and updating not a single author's
>responsibility, but a growing community's activity.
>
>We attract if "there would be material available to read", very
>true. We need more material. Any kind of material. So people can
>find out how nice it is to read and write LFN, experience its
>simplicity and universality, see that it is alive.
>
>ActiveSelective
>
Antonio Carlos R. da Fonseca
acrfonseca@...