Received: from mail-wi0-f186.google.com ([209.85.212.186]:35073) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XS4ki-0004EK-N0 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:37 -0700 Received: by mail-wi0-f186.google.com with SMTP id ex7sf199764wid.23 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=niwUuLSV1EfM1PUZjY/Iw3Bpi+C/zolVNZlyJeT46/M=; b=DBgeOLdW1VC3flJ0pSKkDtHDKz1ekjfVxzWQjai72RlIRzW0jPmZuuyKXcudCDFQ+s r/ZSxKbeoVwjZtCIVvEZfrTAryWViIZzbRmkVrI/d7cVn4jtUrKkdiCBnV9wsIw/W0Pl vLhBeu5oPT3/jOXWpluvCNlBDFUBMfLcsz7gkBpt03840BFdrsbYkZDRlFkoB8iOt1uO hs8I/tOdHb+QNJVXj0zrXPsHy8apVFyg2MluSfm39P1zaQfTIVbLzH4BS/TSdaLTY6Fp QWfv7RjgsyZktL6AbaNwxfXlVtJajktSRG8/az/tCTBm4/qY0KKxx4AonK33jz5RX6Ks 2I1A== X-Received: by 10.180.76.165 with SMTP id l5mr49991wiw.8.1410443361801; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.101.136 with SMTP id fg8ls722372wib.6.canary; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.37.211 with SMTP id a19mr251404wik.6.1410443361335; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h1si122460wib.0.2014.09.11.06.49.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::236; Received: by mail-wi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e4so1095146wiv.9 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.195.13.2 with SMTP id eu2mr1684124wjd.88.1410443361246; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (97e1e8ee.skybroadband.com. [151.225.232.238]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm6041040wiw.6.2014.09.11.06.49.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5411A85E.30604@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:49:18 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership References: <25B055499F67420FA34794323F9A95AB@gmail.com> <540B374A.9040409@lojban.org> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com> <54104F32.6090308@gmail.com> <8D12D3A73AA44E8A8C25AEA15736F517@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8D12D3A73AA44E8A8C25AEA15736F517@gmail.com> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - > On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be d= eemed correct: >> >> 1. usage >> 2. official codification >> 3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency, = regularity, unambiguity, integrity >> >> & possibly a fourth: >> >> 4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion) >> >> (4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban. >> >> All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob I hope = (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What do you think it is= ? Alex Burka, On 10/09/2014 15:32: > I think it's 3>1>2 for me, although I'm not exactly sure of the > distinction you're drawing between "usage" and "consensus". And to > keep 3 above 1, you need 2 to be able to slowly adapt to 1/4... so it's > intertwined. I meant (4) as a consensus of opinion that is independent of usage, an opin= ion about how people ought to say stuff but not necessarily about how they = actually do say stuff. You could say 4 is an uncodified body of lore. Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 14:35:> > For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage > although 4. defines 1. and partially 3. Okay. I can square that with some of what you say. But you also said that w= hat is codified should be based on usage -- which surely conflicts with 3>4= >1. And you also decried changes to the codification (because it causes som= e people to abandon the language) yet also criticized the adoption of xorlo= on the apparent grounds that it has not been codified (in a new reference = grammar), implying that were it codified, you would not decry it. > More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not h= undreds of > conlangs whose usage has not spread because people would= n't stop > fiddling with the language design. > > I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if no= t hundreds of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped = fiddling with the language design. > > He won't. I can confirm his words. I've got a lot of people from > Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they > learnt that CLL was no longer valid. > > Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers. > > Usage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger (although i > preferred to use "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang") Yes, I agree that is what 'conlanger means'. I thought you had meant "[Bob]= won't [be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hundreds of conlang= s whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling with the lan= guage design]" but because you didn't really substantiate that and instead = talked about conlang users, I thought maybe you had misread "conlangers" fo= r "conlangs". But I think I see now what you meant. You cited a diminution in the use of = Quenya in response to new information emerging about the diachrony of its i= nvention, so I infer that you mean that many conlangs -- dozens if not hund= reds -- if published and never publicly revised would attract users, regard= less of whether their creator wished or intended that to happen. History pr= oves that this is generally not the case; only exceptionally does a publish= ed conlang attract users, even when the published codification never alters= . But Bob and implicitly you seem also to be saying that failure to attract= users constitutes some kind of absolute failure as a language. --And. --=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/d/optout.