NGL: Proposal: Regarding the Building of the Lexicon

This is a repost of an important new post from Stephen Degrace
regarding the possible structure of the NGL net democracy.

>1.0    Introduction
>
>This piece is written to address some of the practical issues as I see
>them regarding the current debate on the best way to build the
>lexicon. Further, I propose a mechanism for lexical building. I sort
>of regret getting into this right now, because I did promise Jerry a
>response to his piece regarding the spatial vector system, which I am
>woefully behind on, and I am behind on a number of other replies as
>well, to say nothing of any personal projects that are currently on
>hold. Well, I can only do so much, and this issue is important. So, I
>will here supplement my previously supplied two cents with a further
>two bits, and let the other stuff wait a bit more :-).
>
>I will attempt to address this issue in an organised fashion; in
>addition, I will attempt to be a bit comprehensive.
>
>In this proposal I will be making proposals for changes to the
>functioning of the group, which is actually quite presumtuous of me. I
>apologise for this, and hope I don't offend anyone too much. My hope
>is to at least stimulate some discussion by this which will hopefully
>lead to a harmonious, practical consensus on the issue of vocabulary
>building.
>
>2.0    The Current State and Status of the Lexicon
>
>As I understand it, (and I freely admit, I'm confused about a lot of
>stuff, so if I'm wrong about stuff, please correct me. We will all
>benefit from having mis-conceptions cleared), what we have now is a
>proposal from Jack for a module consisting of between six and seven
>hundred morphemes based largely on a vocabulary list known as the
>Ogden Set, with which Ogden claims you can talk your way around just
>about any idea. A clever idea for a starting place, but clearly vastly
>inadequate for our eventual needs. This raises the question, How shall
>we grow the vocabulary? There are a number of ways ideas floating
>around in this regard, and I will attempt to collect and characterise
>them. A further issue, that I have not seen fully addressed, is what
>is the ultimate status of Jack's vocabulary? I will tackle that one
>first, and then finally propose what I think _should_ be its status.
>
>2.1    The Ogden Set
>
>The question here is, is this going to be a final part of the language
>in some form? And if so, what is it's status within the language and
>how do we go about proposing modifications?
>
>I'll address the legal issues first. It appears to me that anything
>and everything you propose for NGL is part of a module. That just
>seems to be the way things work. So, okay, Jack's Ogden Set is a
>module. Since it is _his_ module and he will ultimately be the one to
>place it before the electorate to vote on, that makes him the final
>arbiter of what goes in it. So if, for example, I hate a certain
>connotation on a certain word, like the fact that {dum}, "normal," has
>the connotation of "zombie," there is absolutely nothing I can do
>until the event that the Ogden Set is ratified and comes under the
>powers of normal linguistic change, in which case I can simply refuse
>to feed the connotation on {dum}, and if enough people follow suit it
>will lose the connotation I happen not to like.
>
>But that's not quite true, that there's _nothing_ intralegal I can do,
>because it seems to me one type of proposal that ought to be possible
>is a proposal for an amendment. So I could theoretically propose
>changes to the words of the Ogden Set or additions to the list. But
>this creates somewhat of an adversarial atmosphere that I really want
>no part of.
>
>What is the proposed status of the Ogden Set? Is it to be the true
>core vocabulary of NGL upon which all else builds as part of a
>separate module? If so, what are borrowings? Are they part of a module
>too? Jack's words are for the most part perfectly fine, (although I
>have quibbles), and I think it would be insane to create a complete
>competing list. We have this resource that Jack has put enormous
>energy into giving us, why not take advantage of it? I'm sure as hell
>not going to go through all the work of creating a complete competing
>vocabulary, especially considering I generally support Jack's
>vocabulary, and I don't see anyone else volunteering to create a
>competitor either. So I think we need to accept that Jack's vocabulary
>is going to be part of the language in some form as a practical
>matter, and work from there.
>
>2.2
>
>I have a proposal with regards to the status of the Ogden Set and
>methods for building the vocabulary, which I will deal with in section
>2.3. Here I shall address what I see as the current options that have
>been proposed, as well as the nature of the status quo. These things
>are relevant because they had an impact on what I finally decided to
>propose.
>
>2.2.1  The Status Quo
>
>The basic nature of the status quo is that the Ogden Set is the core
>vocabulary and that Jack, as the proposer of the Ogden Set is the de
>facto arbiter of what goes into the core vocabulary. I gather that
>when you propose a module, you are the basic arbiter of its final
>form, but if you propose a single morpheme or a single change to a
>morpheme, basically you're working through Jack... New words are added
>by a process of proposal followed by lengthy debate, and the status of
>many "orphan" morphemes can remain obscure. I stress, though, that we
>have a good, solid, useful starting vocabulary and it is growing, so
>not all is bad, by any means.
>
>The problem here is that the vocabulary grows slowly (if you want to
>consider this a problem), that IMO nothing's status is comfortably
>clear, and that more responsibility for the entire lexicon is placed
>on Jack's shoulders than is fair to him, creating an unfair workload
>on him and ironically fuelling resentment at the de facto power over
>the core lexicon that his position as proposer of the Ogden Set
>affords him. There is some good in the current situation, but I do not
>consider it stable over the long term.
>
>2.2.2  Massive Temporary Borrowing
>
>Jerry's idea. The concept is that if you need a morpheme borrow it
>from somebody. Then as time goes on, gradually replace the borrowed
>morphemes with native ones, optimised for syllable count and so on.
>
>This idea has some attractive aspects, but generally speaking I don't
>like it. I think it will cause NGL to be far more massively
>foreign-influenced in its early stages than it really ought to be. We
>will be using words with meaning realms set in other languages, and it
>seems to me that as these get replaced they will tend to get replaced
>by words with the same meaning realm. Meaning _de facto_ a strong
>English influence on the basic character of the language. Further,
>exactly what langauges are we allowed to borrow from, anyway? We have
>a couple of Spanish-speakers around here, and if NGL truly isn't
>biased they should be able to borrow from Spanish when they do
>space-filled translations... problem is, I don't speak a whole lot of
>Spanish, and it would be just as easy for me for practical purposes if
>they just made up words and included a vocabulary list. What I'm
>trying to say here is that the borrowing idea wouldn't necessarily be
>any easier, any better, or any fairer than what we already have.
>
>I believe that making new morphemes as-you-compose on the basis of
>perceived need is an excellent way to add to the language, and it
>seems to me that if a policy of massive borrowing were followed
>instead, people would be discouraged from doing this kind of useful
>work.
>
>Besides, we already have a mechanism in the language to allow impromtu
>borrowing, the lazy marks. The advantage of this is that it explicitly
>isolates and sets off the borrowings, and it tends by its very nature
>to discourage its own use in compositions (as opposed to more
>conversational, "chatty" pieces where you really can't coin in
>mid-sentence).
>
>2.2.3  The Call to Arms
>
>The idea here is that we try and mobilise a massive force to build a
>large vocabulary quickly. This is a good idea in principle, and I
>think that there is no problem whatsoever with this idea being carried
>out in some form. The big problem I see here, though, is organisation.
>How do we make sure that these words get some kind of vetting, and how
>do we make sure these words get duly recorded so we can access them?
>The idea here is nice, but I want to see it proposed in conjuction
>with some sort of proposal as to how recruitment, briefing on the
>phonology and philosophy of the language, review of proposed
>morphemes, and recording of the results, and so on, is to be actually
>organised. I'm not at all saying that this isn't necessarily do-able
>or desirable, but before I take a position on it, I'd like to see the
>proponents of this plan come out with a proposal for implementation
>that includes thought as to the practical logistic aspects of this
>exercise, because it does matter, in my opinion.
>
>2.3    My Proposal For the Growth of the Lexicon
>
>This proposal is a shot at a practical mechanism. I fully realise that
>this proposal is not fully-formed, and I welcome others fleshing it
>out and modifying it, if the basic idea finds favour. My general
>feeling is that the more people give some input, the better it will
>be.
>
>First and foremost, I want to modify the way the modular system
>relates to _vocabulary_. I want modularity abolished. I want it clear
>that no word is modular or core, it's either part of the language or
>not. Words can be slangy or jargony, but that's a different thing
>altogether. For example, although {isopurrpanamin} comes origionally
>from the Chemistry module, and is professional jargon most people
>would not know, under this proposal it is nevertheless part of the
>"core" language, not "modular." Modules may propose vocabulary items,
>but these vocabulary items are specifically _not_ part of the module,
>they are part of the main language as a whole, if they are accepted
>with (or even without) the module. A module, then, is nothing more
>than a way to organise proposals. If it is anything more, then it is a
>_protocol_ regarding the _use_ of morphemes, not a set of morphemes
>itself. For example, the vector module morphemes {fu}, {pa}, and {mu}
>are a full part of the language meaning "future," "past," and
>"present"; although they are proposed with the vector system, they are
>made part of the main language and do not form the essence of the
>proposal itself. The VTT proposal instead is a proposal for a protocol
>for using these and other morphemes that are proposed concurrently
>with the VTT proposal, as a system for rendering the tense of verbs.
>
>Words do not "belong" to a module, and the lexicon itself is not a
>module, it is a distinct entity that transcends modules. My proposal
>is that *each and every morpheme is a separate proposal*. So something
>like Jack's Ogden set is not a single module but a collection of about
>640 separate proposals.
>
>Words belong to only three categories, proposed, accepted, and
>provisonal. Ratification is only required to settle disputes where the
>parties arguing the particular morpheme cannot find a compromise. This
>system requires that people be willing to be civil to one another and
>be open to compromise. It requires a certain collective goodwill, in
>order to keep down the number of ratification votes required so the
>group doesn't get bogged down. Ratification is still _required_ for
>_protocols_, like tense systems and rules of grammar, I'm not
>proposing to change that. As some morphemes may have a function that
>is basicaly grammatical, their fate may be tied up in these votes.
>However, if we maintain a certain basic goodwill and mature attitude,
>this grey area should not cause too many problems.
>
>A word may be proposed at any time, and it makes no difference if it
>is proposed separately or with a module. It cannot be accepted until
>somebody has seconded it. The word is considered accepted if no
>further debate is forthcoming (and not considered accepted until
>debate ceases amicably), and it is then added to the lexicon as the
>equal member.
>
>Words may be proposed in large chunks, as with the Ogden Set. It is
>acceptible to to accept provisionally (a grey category) the entire
>chunk without debating every single word in it. However, it has to be
>understood that later on, as people try to use this block of words,
>they may feel free to re-open debate on any particular word, and the
>accepted status of that word is gone until debate ceases again.
>
>Basic civility and maturity of participants is relied upon to make
>sure that quibbling, (while quibbling is definitely acceptible) is not
>frivolus or spiteful and does not bog down the group. I believe we
>have the maturity to carry this off.
>
>The provisional category is to handle honest differences of opinion
>that can't be solved right away. If the parties arguing the point
>can't agree, a disputed morpheme can be made provisional (and gets
>marked as such in the lexicon). "Provisional" basically means that the
>morpheme's proponents will use the morpheme for a while to try and
>demonstrate its value, but the morpheme is understood to have a more
>precarious and less official status. An excellent example of this type
>of morpheme is my {paon}, "on the surface of," which has never
>achieved general acceptance, but which I still use occassionally to
>try and make a case for it. Provisionals can be re-proposed by their
>proponents, after which the disputing parties will either agree to
>drop the morpheme, accept the morpheme, accept some compromise, or
>agree to disagee. If the last, they put the morpheme on the
>ratification list, and put the question to the voters.
>
>Words placed on the ratification list are treated as provisional until
>there's a ratification vote to determine their fate.
>
>The lexicon is not carved in stone. The deletion or modification of
>any existing word can be proposed at any time, and goes through the
>process of acceptance in the same way as a new proposal for a
>borrowing or a coining.
>
>As for how to get new morphemes: not by massive true-borrowing, not in
>the early stages of the language, that much I think is generally
>agreed. If some kind of massive mobilisation of effort for coining is
>implemented and properly thought out with regards to organisation,
>great. But as for me, I'm in no particular hurry. The way I currently
>plan to approach vocabulary building is in the way I've been doing, by
>working with the language and making proposals where this causes me to
>see a need. I'm patient and don't mind if it takes a long while to
>build up a large vocabulary. And I don't think it's disasterous if I
>have to work with a more limited vocabulary early on. I say, leave the
>question open, and if anybody thinks of a way we can speed it along
>and propose a practical way to implement it, that's wonderful.
>
>I propose two phases of wordsmithing. We are currently in phase one,
>Design. This proposal concerns the structure of the Design phase.
>Phase two is Launching. The beginning of the launching phase would
>take place by vote, and in my opinion, only Julian Morrison, as
>project leader, should have the right to propose launching. During
>Design, these rules I propose would be in effect. If Launching is
>proposed, all outstanding morphemic ratifications have to be voted,
>and if Launching itself is then ratified, all accepted morphemes are
>then also automatically ratified. After this, the language can only
>grow and change by usage. A group of users can agree to change some
>facet of the way they do things, for example, to adopt a new coining,
>but the only way it can be "accepted" is if other people voluntarily
>start using it. There maybe ought to be some sort of "NGL council"
>(the working of which is way beyond the scope of this proposal) which
>can _suggest_ the course of the language, but as a living thing the
>language will no longer be fully under its designers' control.
>
>The practical aspect of this is the recording of the lexicon. Somebody
>has got to volunteer to maintain this thing (maybe we could rotate).
>I'm not sure of the techincal details in keeping a Master Lexicon we
>can all use, since not everyone can use Shoebox, so unfortunately my
>plans have hole on this front. But it needs to be done... a Master
>Lexicon needs to be kept, and posted periodically so everyone can
>follow it's changes and so that it's always available as a reference.
>On at least a monthly basis, a list of proposed changes that have
>accumulated during that time (mostly additions, I should think), needs
>to be published so that everyone can review it and help whoever's
>maintaining the lexicon make sure the record is accurate.
>
>I don't want the job of keeper. I have a whole lot on my plate already
>right now... but if no one else volunteers to do it, I will. This is a
>job, not a privelege. Whoever does this is nothing more than record
>keeper, his voice carries no extra weight as to what actually goes
>_in_ the lexicon. So I expect we will trade it around periodically, so
>that one person doesn't have to shoulder all the burden...
>
>3.0    Summary
>
>To summarise, here are the basic principles for vocabulary building I
>propose:
>
>1.     There are no vocabulary modules; every morpheme is a separate
>proposal.
>
>2.     Absolutely anyone can propose a morpheme.
>
>3.     A morpheme is accepted if:
>       i.      It is proposed
>       ii.     Somebody seconds it
>       iii.    After a reasonable time there is no further debate
>about it.
>
>The usual sequence for words about which there proves some desire for
>debate is 1. proposal 2. debate 3. seconding if some agreement is
>reached among interested parties 4. wait a bit 5. record as accepted
>
>3a.    Seconding has to be explicit. Jerry's pronouns, for example,
>would not be considered accepted yet under this system, because even
>though I have expressed a basic liking for the idea, that is not the
>same as seconding, no-one has yet seconded the idea.
>
>4.     Nothing is carved in stone; proposals to delete or modify
>accepted morphemes can be made and are dealt with in the same basic
>way as proposals for new morphemes.
>
>5.     Chunks like the Ogden Set can be provisionally accepted to
>save time; they are treated as accepted, but debate can be re-opened
>on their members, removing their accepted status until debate is
>resolved.
>
>6.     If an agreement cannot be reached, we take a breather and call
>the morpheme provisional. Its proponent(s) can make a further case for
>it through use, and can eventually re-offer it for acceptance.
>
>7.     A ratification list is maintained; if no agreement can be come
>to on a morpheme after initial debate and a provisional period, the
>mopheme goes on the ratification list. Items on the list have to be
>voted on by the electorate to gain acceptance or be rejected, in the
>meantime they remain provisional. There is no set time the list has to
>be voted on, it can be done in batches, but the list has to be cleared
>before the Launching stage.
>
>8.     In order to launch the language as a living thing, as opposed
>to an object under construction, Our Glorious Leader (Julian :-) has
>to propose launching and it has to pass vote. Votes for items still on
>the ratification list have to be held at this time. If the vote to
>launch passes, the entire accepted lexicon is ratified. These rules
>then cease to be in effect, as the behaviour of the living language is
>beyond their scope.
>
>The most basic principle of the system is that it depends on
>amicability to cut down on the amount of legalism necessary in order
>to buld the vocabulary. The system depends on goodwill, civility and
>maturity. It's okay to argue hard, but people have to always be open
>to compromise, and considerate of the feelings and preferences of
>others. I propose this believing in my heart of hearts that we are
>capable of this kind of amicable, mature arrangement. If I am wrong,
>my whole system will break down. This system is IMO fairly flexible
>and easy, but people have to be willing to work to make it work.
>
>3.1    Conclusion
>
>I hope this proposal contains some useful ideas. I earnestly apologise
>if I have offended anybody by anything I have said here or if the
>ideas here are so obvious as to be a waste of people's time for me to
>present them. I hope they will be considered seriously and represent a
>positive contribution to the debate.
>
>Naesverig,
>
>Stephen DeGrace
>1998, i'anasu 5.e
>
>