From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 10 14:28:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 21:28:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 1246 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 21:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 21:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 21:28:47 -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 <20021010212848.BDQT16428.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:28:48 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021010170356.032eb870@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:28:27 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Usage deciding (was: RE: 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 02:18 PM 10/10/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: >la lojbab cusku di'e > >I have long been afraid that Jorge's using an innovation might become > >accepted as a viable standard merely because he has used it a lot. > >Do you have a concrete example that causes you such concern? NO, because I admittedly have NOT paid much attention to usage. >Why would it be a problem that something I use becomes accepted? You misunderstand. I mean that your usage being some humongous percentage of all usage on line, if we look for instances of some of the features of the language, especially the more esoteric ones, a high percentage if not all of them will be your usages and no one else's. I am worried that people will say "usage has decided", based on a couple dozen usages, all by Jorge. That is NOT an suggestion that the idea is bad merely because it has come from you (indeed the fact that you have tested something gives it added credibility when it is understood), but rather that we need lots of usage by lots of people of the features being debated, before we can say that usage has decided anything. Now maybe that usage is occurring. But my perception (which could be false) based on the Alice translation, is that you are still writing 90% of the Lojban text that is actually being written. There is a lot more such text than there was 5 years ago, and a lot more people are writing it, but whereas others write sentences and paragraphs, you write multi-pages. This is good - it tests the language thoroughly. It can often prove that something does or doesn't work. It doesn't much prove that something is "best". >Are you similarly afraid of innovations by other users of the language? I'm afraid of innovations contrary to the baseline by anyone. I accept that they will happen (and sometimes they turn out to be good things), but it is a reluctant acceptance. I enjoy innovations that are NOT contrary to the baseline. > > "Let > >usage decide" was meant to refer to collective usage by many people in many > >contexts, so that the usage itself becomes normative rather than > >exceptional. > >{ka'enai} would seem to be the best example of that, not only >against CLL but also against the baselined grammar, and yet used >by many people in many contexts. I suspect that it arose through ignorance, since there is a way to say it. You and And seem to be the primary innovators who KNOW that you are acting against the baseline. > >As long as it is his > >private writing, he can then decide whether to listen to them. > >All of my writing is my private writing, isn't it? I said that in the context of the supposedly collaborative nature of the Alice translation. > >Barring > >Alice being called a Jorge-only project (which may indeed be happening), > >being dialectal seems wrong. > >It would be unfair to the other three contributors to call it >a Jorge-only project. Adam did a fair bit of work (about a >chapter and a half) and Pierre and Robin did significant parts >of another chapter, though I heavily edited those. Also Pierre >did extensive revision of all the work. But I don't mind it >having big red warning signs "DANGER - EDITED BY XORXES" all >over it if that makes you happy. %^) It doesn't matter whose name is on it. It is whether it represents an attempt by a group to write in accord with a common standard or whether the final result represents the idiosyncrasy of one writer (whether it be you or someone else). Please don't take offense - I LIKE that you use the language a lot. But your choices, often intentionally against the standard, scare me. > >The Board is attempting at this moment to wrestle with a clear statement of > >baseline policy and making progress. I don't want to try to argue the > >issue in multiple fora. It is proving hard enough with only 7 of us, > >though consensus may be starting to win out. > >Could you remind us who the 7 members are? Is this 7-people consensus >going to be representative of the opinions of the community at large? Nick, xod, pc, Cowan, Nora, myself, and Shawn Lasseter. Most of the debate has been between xod and Nick and myself. The discussions on the list regarding fundamentalism and other things, though not instigated by the separate discussion among Board members, has contributed to that discussion, so in a sense everyone is being listened to. The "consensus" that we come up with will be put to the community and will ultimately be subjected to some sort of ratification by the members, probably at the next annual meeting. So we are discussing the subject as representatives of the community, and not so much our own interests. 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