From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Oct 09 11:17:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 9 Oct 2002 18:17:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 94761 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 18:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2002 18:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2002 18:17:42 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021009181742.PPPE16428.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:17:42 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021009134220.031c4310@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:06:31 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [Announcement] The Alice Translation Has Moved And Changed In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 05:41 PM 10/9/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >Jordan: >#situation where it *is* simply correcting an error. > >In long debates held in the past, it emerged that Lojban Central's >policy was Let Usage Decide (or Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom >for the maoists). It still is. >The idea was there would be no official prescriptions >regulating usage, and that the language would emerge out of the >melee of usage like organisms from the primeval soup. That is, >if one thought that such and such a feature of Lojban was broken, >then one should respond by adding to one's usage a mended >version of the feature, and collective usage would determine whether >it was useful enough to catch on. That is NOT what "let a thousand flowers bloom" means, as I have understood it, although pc was the originator of the slogan's use and can correct me about his intent. He, after all, also condemned Carter's usages in violation of settled Loglan standards as "Nalgol" (Loglan backwards). "Let a thousand flowers bloom" means that questions of usage (and especially semantics) for which there is no clear answer in the language definition should be left undefined and unadjudicated - that there would be no "right" and "wrong" by fiat, and that may possible solutions should be encouraged to exist. As a design principle, it means that if logic does not require a particular solution, that we include multiple options. "Let usage decide" by contrast means that when there is a small but finite set of legal options for expressing something, that we do not need to decide it by fiat, but usage will select it. It also indirectly refers to the EVENTUAL fate of the baseline language, that usage might "decide" by evolution away from the standard, where violations of the baseline go unremarked because no one notices and yet understanding occurs, until there is a clear pattern of usage; that clearly has NOT occurred here. Furthermore, the whole spirit of that understanding of "let usage decide" was referring to the natural language style of evolution which is NOT a matter of one person attempting to change the rule by intentionally violating it. The "thousand flowers blooming" suggests in fact that usage should NOT decide on a single form, but should tolerate multiple forms. But all this refers to "usage" which is those areas of the language that are left undefined, or perhaps where the definition is not understood. Meanwhile, while the baseline exists, LLG is committed to actively defending the baseline as a standard. We cannot say that something is in accord with the baseline, if it clearly rejects it. >So (and note that I am not flaming here) when you and Jay come along >saying it is sinful to violate the baseline in one's usage, this is a clear >deviation from what at one time was the relatively consensual position >of the community. It is indeed "sinful" to insist on a violation of the baseline in one's usage, once it has been identified as a violation of the baseline. Such insistence is the rejection of the concept of consensus and abiding thereby (since the baseline represents a snapshot of what consensus is at some point in time), so arguing on a consensual basis that rejection of the consensus is a good thing seems self-contradictory, or at least bloody-mindedness. > In saying this, I mean only to point out that what >xorxes does was formerly generally held to constitute Right and >Proper behaviour of the good lojbanist. I think you misunderstand what was held as "Right and Proper". lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org