From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Fri Nov 10 07:35:58 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:35:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GiYQ0-0001WS-DM for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:35:54 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id c2so527129ugf for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:35:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GrgJfES4yWvzChYHOliMHK5y55biWGfJNRUKFCkZX3q/5UeON3L+0sgDHu7vnzXZn83xx4ocss3Kkfpuct/3CG2cGHJ+s7hC3LNvZkvO/u71GdWoErBdgpSoafBpc62qLPSKz1WREBPEIX7ja7Mcfrg8rJC8MK37ogQMpbPHsVM= Received: by 10.78.69.7 with SMTP id r7mr2614729hua.1163172946412; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:35:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.144.3 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:35:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:35:46 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: sai@saizai.com Subject: [llg-board] Re: LCS Board of Directors (fwd) Cc: llg-board@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 247 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 > The new organization would have as its charter the promotion of > conlang*ing* primarily, and conlang*s* secondarily (with no bias for > or against any particular language), though all means at its disposal. Sai, I'm excited to hear about all the activity. I look forward to seeing what emerges. There are different ways to interpret the word "conlanging". Does this mean what conlang inventors do, what conlang speakers do, or both? This may turn out to be a bigger issue for your organization than you may think. It is a distinction which, after further experience, you might wish to draw. There are some in the conlang community, particularly in Esperanto and Lojban, who I would refer to as community participants. (In the interest of full disclosure I'll mention that I happen to be one of them.) A community participant just wants to settle on one language and concentrate on it hard enough to thoroughly learn it and use it. In so doing we become part of that language community. We do not necessarily have any interest in designing a new language of one's own. There are those who can never resist the urge to tinker in conlangs, sometimes at the risk of never settling on one changeless enough to speak and be understood, because that is not their goal. They are often less interested in language learning. If your organization will be an umbrella organization, it may serve better as a useful valve into which to vent the pressure of language inventors so they stop trying to change our languages and start talking about it on your forums instead. Where "conlanging" is defined as an interest in learning the whys and wherefores of language invention, community participants perceive "conlanging" as a tendency to schism communities. Where "conlanging" is defined as conlang usage, successful communication demands that the hearer and the speaker adhere to the same standard, sufficiently settled that it won't change out from under them; therefore inventors perceive "conlanging" as a tendency to stifle diversity and innovation. Saying that your organization is only secondarily about the languages themselves suggests that language learning and community participation are secondary. It's possible for you to deliberately incorporate both sections into your community, but whichever way you go, it would help to do so explicitly. > Primarily this means the LCC and a new cross-conlinguistic journal > publication (as per my earlier announcement on CONLANG and ZBB); > secondarily it could mean other publications (eg the Conlang Books > Project), partnerships with other conlang related organizations, > research sponsorship, academic advocacy, grant seeking, etc. In terms of your publications, there are two ways to interpret the language-neutrality of your mission. Think of it as a Venn diagram of all conlangs, in which you publish a digest of all major content published by all the major language communities-- for example, highlights from the Lojban blog. Alternately, your publications could be restricted to the spots on the Venn diagrams where most languages overlap. Then you would print only articles that are relevant to a broad number of conlangs. I hope this helps to clarify some mission-related questions that your organization will have to make. I thank you for your efforts and wish you the best of luck. Sincerely, Matt Arnold Logical Language Group Board Member P.S. I like your flag.