A compilation of information about Solresol, the universal musical language

Governance

Discussions regarding Solresol as a whole, including tutorials/guides, special events, and other resources.
pazeex wrote:If the Esperanto documents are available in Esperanto, then we could just run them through Google translate. (:
OK, here's the English translation of their Statute via Google. It's very rough, as can be expected, but most of it is comprehensible, or at least can be inferred. Some parts I honestly couldn't figure out, but if all else fails, I'm sure they have a contact that could fill us in on the untranslatable details.
Great!

I would say that the Esperanto Academy is based on sound principals.
Here are some quotes from wikipedia:
The Akademio de Esperanto (Academy of Esperanto) is an independent body of language scholars who steward the evolution of the language Esperanto by keeping it consistent with the fundamental principles thereof. Modelled somewhat after the Académie française, it was proposed by L. L. Zamenhof, creator of Esperanto, at the First World Congress of Esperanto...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademio_de_Esperanto
L'Académie française... is the pre-eminent French learned body on matters pertaining to the French language... The Académie consists of forty members, known as immortels (immortals).[2] New members are elected by the members of the Académie itself. Académicians hold office for life, but they may be removed for misconduct... The body has the task of acting as an official authority on the language; it is charged with publishing an official dictionary of the language. Its rulings, however, are only advisory, not binding on either the public or the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9 ... %C3%A7aise

As you can see above, the principals of Esperanto, and the French Academy is that "The body has the task of acting as an official authority on the language; it is charged with publishing an official dictionary of the language. Its rulings, however, are only advisory, not binding on either the public or the government."

Solresol could have good use for something similar. I realize this doesn't happen over night, nevertheless it looks to me as our long term goal here. So, how far down the road are we looking? Well, if we are going to follow esperantos example to the letter, we would need to stage a world congress with some 690 participants. I don't know how many Solresol speakers or enthusiasts there are who would travel to such a congress.

We could however live in our century, and use the internet as our tool. Maybe manage to gather up a few more members, maybe even a hundred or two. And hold some form of online meeting to make actual decisions on this matter. But to get there, we need a plan. (:
Well, just throwing a number out there, we currently have what I consider 8 active members. Collin N. hasn't logged in for about a month, and Avinty-Lan has logged in recently, but not posted.

Larger numbers are better (and international meetings are also good), but I think we should be realistic at this point. Many potentially interested people have discounted Solresol as an abandoned and unusable language, but we at least have 8 people that think differently. Even the Académie française had its origin with a group of 9 people.

I think we should start tying up loose ends that have been around for more than a year, and at least have a small governing body that can grow over time. Besides, even if we wait for more people, we will still likely be the most qualified to govern Solresol simply due to the time we've already spent analyzing the language. Perhaps:
  • General Assembly consisting of an arbitrary number
  • General Assembly membership by at least 5 constructive posts, expressing interest, and majority vote of General Assembly
  • Voting Body consisting of an arbitrary number
  • Voting Body membership by nomination (by GA or VB member) and majority vote of Voting Body
In the beginning, at least, the General Assembly would be those from the following list that want to be in it (they meet the 5-post requirement): Dan, Garrison, pazeex, Siremisol, shanoxilt, Taytanchik, Doresifado, T.B.McKenzie. The General Assembly would then vote to establish the initial Voting Body. From there, the bulleted list would be the policy and of course the Voting Body could add/remove/change whatever by majority vote.

How does this sound as a beginning structure? It's not much, but it would pave the way for growth to a more comprehensive organization.
I agree with you Dan, I'd rather not have to wait around in hopes of more members joining before establishing an initial governing structure. And I will gladly take part in the GA/VB. I just have a couple of questions:

- If we form this GA, we should hold some sort of meeting, does anyone have a good suggestion for how to conduct a online meeting? My suggestion is a Google+ Hangout.
- Can we make the GA's initial/first official goal: an effort to standardize Solresol?
(resolve as much as possible of "Sudre vs Gajewski" and bring the vocabulary into this century).

I think this is a first and important step. The proposed organization will give ground for advisory , yet official decisions concerning Solresol grammar and vocabulary. And I think that will give more overall status as a language, and attract even more interest from others.

RLS - Redoremi Lalasolre Solresol, It has a nice ring to it! don't you think (:
pazeex wrote: - If we form this GA, we should hold some sort of meeting, does anyone have a good suggestion for how to conduct a online meeting? My suggestion is a Google+ Hangout.
As far as group video chat, it's a major hurdle just starting out. Google+ has a 10-person limitation, Skype charges for group video chat, and this alternative I found called ooVoo has a 12-person limitation. Also, I'm not sure if all those people I listed are good speakers of English, so that might influence the primary setting of meetings. I don't mean to sound like I'm opposing every idea, but I'm just making sure we're all aware of as many details as possible. :)
pazeex wrote: - Can we make the GA's initial/first official goal: an effort to standardize Solresol?
(resolve as much as possible of "Sudre vs Gajewski" and bring the vocabulary into this century).
That's up to a vote, but I would say that would be one of the first orders of business. 8-)
pazeex wrote: RLS - Redoremi Lalasolre Solresol, It has a nice ring to it! don't you think (:
Honestly, the names I used (General Assembly and Voting Body) were simply just to place a name to each group. I would have no problem if there were a discussion and vote to change the names. Some other meaningful words I had as possibilities: committee, council, society, authority, association.

Like I said, I don't really care if we vote to do everything the opposite way; this is simply to get something started. I have a feeling we should let a few others respond before pushing it much more; don't want to feel like I'm pushing this idea on everyone! :lol:
The name of the governing institution as a whole could be Sóllasido lasi Solresol, the "Academy of Solresol."
Hey guys,

I’m kind of split on this, I guess. On the one hand, I think governing bodies are too formal and ‘distant;’ I’d prefer just coming to a consensus as a group and letting the language develop organically.

On the other hand, I have enough experience with Esperanto and other conlangs to know that people will often show up on forums and either want to radically change an established conlang or use it as a vehicle for some other agenda (often religious). If I had a dime for every time someone came to the Esperanto forum I frequent with brand new ways to “improve” Esperanto, I’d be Oprah. :) In Esperanto’s case, there are 16 “untouchable” rules, and for the most part, people abide by them, because they keep Esperanto intact, and the rest of the grammar allows for wiggle room/is seen as fair game for debate (if I can put it that way).

Solresol doesn’t really have any set of “untouchable” rules, unless we establish those outlined by Sudre as such, which would make sense, because if we threw all those rules out (about stress marking for parts of speech, word order, etc.), then what would we have? Besides the grammar set up by Sudre, I guess, the way I see things going is that hopefully, we can have grammar rules for our Sidosi community and use/promote Sidosi-an Solresol. If someone wants to create another website and their own offshoot...well, it’s bound to happen. It happens to conlangs all the time (How many derivatives of Esperanto are there?). And really, I don’t see language as belonging to any one person, so people are free to do so. But back here, on Sidosi, I guess we can develop Solresol by consensus, except that we can give certain members (those who’ve demonstrably invested a lot of time in Solresol already and shown genuine interest in the development of the language) the power to veto proposals, if it seems that someone has joined the forum simply to rework Solresol completely or to try to promote some agenda (be it political or religious) not related to Solresol.

Lastly, I just want to add, that time is important. I know in my case I can’t check the forum/participate every day, and I’m sure others can’t either. So I think with important decisions, we should allow for a sufficiently large window of time for people to lend their voices or speak up on various decisions. At least a week, please, and not just a 24-hour period. :)
Doresifado wrote:Hey guys,

I’m kind of split on this, I guess. On the one hand, I think governing bodies are too formal and ‘distant;’ I’d prefer just coming to a consensus as a group and letting the language develop organically.

On the other hand, I have enough experience with Esperanto and other conlangs to know that people will often show up on forums and either want to radically change an established conlang or use it as a vehicle for some other agenda (often religious). If I had a dime for every time someone came to the Esperanto forum I frequent with brand new ways to “improve” Esperanto, I’d be Oprah. :) In Esperanto’s case, there are 16 “untouchable” rules, and for the most part, people abide by them, because they keep Esperanto intact, and the rest of the grammar allows for wiggle room/is seen as fair game for debate (if I can put it that way).

Solresol doesn’t really have any set of “untouchable” rules, unless we establish those outlined by Sudre as such, which would make sense, because if we threw all those rules out (about stress marking for parts of speech, word order, etc.), then what would we have? Besides the grammar set up by Sudre, I guess, the way I see things going is that hopefully, we can have grammar rules for our Sidosi community and use/promote Sidosi-an Solresol. If someone wants to create another website and their own offshoot...well, it’s bound to happen. It happens to conlangs all the time (How many derivatives of Esperanto are there?). And really, I don’t see language as belonging to any one person, so people are free to do so. But back here, on Sidosi, I guess we can develop Solresol by consensus, except that we can give certain members (those who’ve demonstrably invested a lot of time in Solresol already and shown genuine interest in the development of the language) the power to veto proposals, if it seems that someone has joined the forum simply to rework Solresol completely or to try to promote some agenda (be it political or religious) not related to Solresol.

Lastly, I just want to add, that time is important. I know in my case I can’t check the forum/participate every day, and I’m sure others can’t either. So I think with important decisions, we should allow for a sufficiently large window of time for people to lend their voices or speak up on various decisions. At least a week, please, and not just a 24-hour period. :)
I see your concerns, and I think I've addressed them, just in a very vague way. I didn't want to start this topic sounding like my ideas were the only ones, but now that a few have offered their own ideas, my below statement includes my personal beliefs on governance of Solresol.

I believe that since we seem to be the only active group developing Solresol (versus simply using it), we should certainly work toward standardization. In no case should we forbid anyone from creating a derivative language; that statement is why I don't assert full copyright over this website (except the design, to help against possibly malicious copies of the site), only enough to require giving credit where it's due. I think standardization would help us penetrate outside the "hobby language" area, and into some legitimate use cases.

I agree with many that Solresol will probably never reach IAL status, but I don't think that opinion should discount the possibility of real-world use for communication. A good example would be Morse code, which has lost much use in the general public, but still holds a significant role in public service radio communication.

A milestone that could help our efforts is establishing a standard international language code. This would not assign us as an authority on the Solresol family of languages; it would simply serve to uniquely identify our version of Solresol that we submit to the language code registrar. With a language code, we could create legitimate (without fear of conflicting with a registered code) Solresol translations of software to submit to developers, and expand our reach. Someday, I would like to be able to announce a Solresol translation of Sidosi. :D You'd be surprised how many people probably look through a language selection list just for fun. I know I have before, and found some "silly" languages that were included. imagine, though, if someone saw Solresol in that list, and discovered it isn't just a "silly" language.

With the amount of work we've all done, I think we at least owe it to ourselves to title our community "a main reference" for the Solresol language. From our community has come translated dictionaries from the creator and a major early advocate, a book that utilizes the language rather than criticizing it, a subreddit, a translator, a (new, but still present) wiki, and the largest known list and permanent archive of Solresol resources. Besides the other revival efforts that seem to have waned now, I haven't really seen issues with Solresol addressed anywhere else but here. I'm not saying dictate the language, simply offer our version in a organized and formalized way.

As a brief comment on actual procedure, with my idea for governance, there would certainly be a lengthy discussion before reaching the point of voting. Also, decisions wouldn't necessarily be permanent, since most languages naturally evolve. That way, even if an issue is brought up after a vote, another vote can be held to reverse a decision, based on the new "evidence". On a related note, I don't support live communication for any sort of decision. Maybe live communication for fun and experimental use, but I would want actual discussions and votes in the forums or such. It would give people the necessary time to read through an entire discussion before voting, and also hold people accountable for their opinions.

These are just my personal ideas, so agree/disagree at will. I'm enjoying the feedback so far. I know it seems kind of counter-productive talking about this idea and not Solresol, but I just want some formalization to say "yes" or "no" to questions, rather than "what everyone else thinks" (which usually ends up different for each person). Perhaps a "project" on the wiki can be listing every question that has come up, and a summary of the answers given, at least just for reference.
Alright, Dan, I think you've assuaged my concerns for the moment. Cheers :D
Dan wrote:A milestone that could help our efforts is establishing a standard international language code. This would not assign us as an authority on the Solresol family of languages; it would simply serve to uniquely identify our version of Solresol that we submit to the language code registrar. With a language code, we could create legitimate (without fear of conflicting with a registered code) Solresol translations of software to submit to developers, and expand our reach. Someday, I would like to be able to announce a Solresol translation of Sidosi. :D You'd be surprised how many people probably look through a language selection list just for fun. I know I have before, and found some "silly" languages that were included. imagine, though, if someone saw Solresol in that list, and discovered it isn't just a "silly" language.
Any suggestions for the three-letter combination? Seems most of the ones that I'd pick for Solresol are taken... :/
Dan wrote:With the amount of work we've all done, I think we at least owe it to ourselves to title our community "a main reference" for the Solresol language. From our community has come translated dictionaries from the creator and a major early advocate, a book that utilizes the language rather than criticizing it, a subreddit, a translator, a (new, but still present) wiki, and the largest known list and permanent archive of Solresol resources. Besides the other revival efforts that seem to have waned now, I haven't really seen issues with Solresol addressed anywhere else but here. I'm not saying dictate the language, simply offer our version in a organized and formalized way.
You're right. I guess I should give the Sidosi community more credit. <pats Sidosi on the back> :)
Doresifado wrote:Any suggestions for the three-letter combination? Seems most of the ones that I'd pick for Solresol are taken... :/
Oops, I forgot to mention that part. The two I've found as possibilities are "slo" (the only combination I could find that only contains letters in "Solresol") and "sud" (obviously in reference to Sudre).

As far as ISO-639-3 (probably the most followed standard, and the only one I've researched), we should keep in mind that they state "The identifier is not intended to be an abbreviation for a name of the language, but to serve as a device to identify a given language uniquely. With thousands of languages, many sets of which have similar names, it is not possible to provide identifiers that resemble a language name in every case." The two I've suggested at least have some relation to Solresol, but of course I'm always open to other ideas. The official ISO-639-3 language code list is on their site.

Of course, there are a couple of other standards that are still used, so perhaps we could also think about an IETF language tag. I think it's the one most commonly used in software, so having one would benefit our connection to the software translation community. I haven't done any research into IETF language tags yet, so I'll just leave my post at that for now.