Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of almikes@aol.com designates 205.188.109.203 as permitted sender) client-ip=205.188.109.203;
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:04:16 +0100
From: Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Alice essay
Message-ID: <20131207110416.7ce5b41e@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68os-PfD31GO0R6Y03BN2RLVsfO0GEQXrxr-RY6D+ux61g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <529EA55C.40800@kli.org>
	<20131204145028.65d8aa5f@aol.com>
	<CALm==BXJQEwKxBhdjhTT8d+Dw5tMHJF048jGk4bs1A-ogW6VBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131206074058.524db1e8@aol.com>
	<CALMa68os-PfD31GO0R6Y03BN2RLVsfO0GEQXrxr-RY6D+ux61g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Am Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:52:46 -0200
schrieb Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:

> Just on a general, but important, note, I believe it is quite
> inappropriate to go on and call patterns used in the translation
> "mistakes" straightaway.
I just were pretty sure about myself. Turns out I was wrong most of the
time.

> Their systematicity, for one, are good indication that they are the
> result of a conscious choice; and you should not assume that that
> this choice is the result of a lack of understanding of lojban.
Well, if there is a rule A in rule system C, and I see a text B which
breaks rule A in rule system C, I conclude that text B breaks rule A in
rule system C. If breaking rule A is part of a =93conscious choise=94,
that=92s fine, but it would be a fallacy to call the result to follow the
rule system C then. That does not imply that B does not follow any rule
system, it may follow a rule system D which is only slightly different
from C.
In our case:
A =3D some rule of Lojban
B =3D the alis text
C =3D the rules of Lojban
D =3D another rule system which is very similar, but not identical to the
    rules of Lojban

Additionally, when I state that some text breaks some rule, I do not
imply that the author of the text fails to understand the rule system
(Lojban). Some mistakes, like spelling mistakes, can happen even if you
are fully aware of the rules.

> Similarly, the existence of many lujvo not defined in the dictionary
> suggests a need on dictionary work, not a problem with the text,
> which, putting the word to real usage, is already a precious
> contribution. It is exciting that we have the opportunity to
> collaborate with the author and document the definitions for the new
> words, resolving its details.
I think it would be better to first write the definition of a new word
and then to use it. If you don=92t want a definition, you can fall back
to tanru or =93za'e=94. If you do it the other way round, like you suggest
now, there is a risk of creating multiple definitions for the same
lujvo, which would go against the purpose of lujvo.
That=92s just my position in brief. I have written it in detail to a
response to gleki.
I take it back to call it a =93mistake=94 outright but call it =93bad
practice=94 instead.

> Whether "la .alis." should be considered lojban or a dialect of
> lojban or something like that is for us to decide, but let us
> consider how the attitude of disregarding relevant work as "not
> truthfully lojban" may produce either a bunch of people, each with
> their own personal lojban, and strong views about why they are right,
> or a community of blind worshipers of a very precise and sterile
> language specification.
When anyone states that a certain text which is not written in (proper)
Lojban is not written in (proper) Lojban this is not an attitude of
disregard but simply a true statement. I did not express an attidude of
disregard, I just showed some mistakes (and bad practices).
I also don=92t understand what you want to =93decide=94 here. I have brough=
t
up facts which show some mistakes *according to the rules I=92ve read*. I
don=92t call something a mistake for nothing. If you think those
things I called =93mistakes=94 aren=92t actually mistakes, show me where I=
=92m
wrong.

I don=92t have ANYTHING against variants and stuff of Lojban. But it is
incorrect to call those variants Lojban, too, because a dialect of a
language and a language are just not the same things.
=20
> I don't see anything wrong with language discussions, and I think any
> published work should be subject to public critique. I just propose we
> approach cultural work with some openness and respect. The hidden
> evil we may not be aware of in confusing style and mistakes,
> regardless of offending someone or not, is that it is
> counter-productive. It opens up the possibility for a conscientious
> effort in lojban production to be rejected by a bunch of English
> words.
Again, I have made no claim that I reject something in general. I have
shown no disrespect against anyone who wrote that text. I have not
shown a general disregard against the text in general. Pointing out
mistakes is not about respects but about facts.
Okay, it seems some of the =93mistakes=94 actually weren=92t but some
remained.

> I too have my hundreds of notes about the idioms and style of the
> work, upon which I intend to reflect, and rethink my own lojban
> expression in response to them. I may discuss a usage with xorxes if
> I feel I don't understand his thought behind it well enough, or if I
> want feedback about my own ideas. In any case, if I ultimately
> dislike some aspect of his style, the only response I can give is by
> producing new material and seeing if people adopt my own. This is the
> way of culture, and I would rather appreciate that lojban had a more
> prolific one.
This goes too off-topic now. No comment.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.