From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Mon Jan 02 09:54:54 2006
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Mon, 02 Jan 2006 09:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.204])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>)
	id 1EtTtT-0004fh-Gx
	for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 09:54:53 -0800
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so2522939nzd
        for <llg-board@lojban.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 09:54:49 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=rm6og7lDJGR8BSnGcy1k1/+AQIeG7grjDOzloxKcN8/KugwXp88EJHfGYv3QIsdsYledaoj1MhL8iRP3PDPbSa3A0N5A0DI1edWCqPKwbOsb2ePw80njlz3KNhUGUuUvaHIvEGCfw65C/1JBsazVFLKg4DlZv3MRLTPc3XBvEfU=
Received: by 10.65.105.9 with SMTP id h9mr242825qbm;
        Mon, 02 Jan 2006 09:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.65.110.14 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 09:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e6663d200601020954m1be6eb09led9ccf05fbfad890@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:54:49 -0500
From: Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>
To: llg-board@lojban.org
Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations
In-Reply-To: <20060102174253.GM29659@miranda.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20051219070640.GB3514@ccil.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.60.0512192024430.8352@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no>
	 <e6663d200512220843t6f237f12s9618a132d24f1c29@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43AB97DF.8030703@lojban.org>
	 <e6663d200512230845p1af77e55pcbad12b543df8ea1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051226195753.GB5289@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.60.0601020122400.8352@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no>
	 <e6663d200601012149g2935c252j74ac84ab81743c51@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060102174253.GM29659@miranda.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 50
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org
X-list: llg-board

On 1/2/06, Jay F Kominek <jkominek@miranda.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 12:49:16AM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote:
> > Similarly, how much good is Lojban for serious experimentation if it
> > isn't released into the wild and allowed to live?
>
> That depends on the sort of experiment. If releasing Lojban into the
> wild means everybody speaks their own broken version of the language,
> then it loses most of its value to me as a means of human-computer
> interaction.
>
> In fact, if it turns into a natlang, I would suggest that most of the
> value is lost for most everyone. We already know where to find natlangs.
>
> --
> Jay Kominek <jkominek@miranda.org>
>

I could not disagree more.

First, the LLG is in charge of defining the canonical language.
Whatever it says Lojban is, it is. In human-computer interaction,
computers will only recognize the LLG's version. A hundred broken
human-to-human versions do not change that.

Second, the natural drift of a highly specified language is one of
things that made Lojban an interesting prospect for linguistic
testing.

-epkat