Received: from mail-la0-f62.google.com ([209.85.215.62]:58073)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBUPLQWQQKGQEKCOSK7Q@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XWQAL-0002Zf-Fn
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:30:04 -0700
Received: by mail-la0-f62.google.com with SMTP id gi9sf694767lab.27
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:53 -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=iyziHsWCNceOPy9JESSD5otWFs9UdkmF5J22DMEbkvQ=;
        b=N/b9GrLJ/W+8+bUKdrC6vOB1ZQsU1eiHU0k1mUBiRNKigvY9gIRcqQ9KKsqfq+Gdvy
         dLeSCg3af299G4eeL6byhRZREoJ4huBptl2xGiuJ9BWL3srfwEgipcLWb/cVOHn9fF1T
         jFYfPf7lMfWXU1ijnX0GDWdTdthnTbECbOUYo6ACpyfa+Q4s97x6XY9KvZI/qQOm5k/g
         NN+Qd1FUoM9Uhj95X32oycTvCvZNAdYIst8V+78hgJu4f8NrlbLy0sbE0L5PXNhKgGkF
         F7urvI5+clDipvePU+Hui+EBD+dvYu6jbLRXFmg9ODOcbi8jo7s5tEt3P+Mdl3wsemGN
         Cmig==
X-Received: by 10.152.6.67 with SMTP id y3mr6839lay.15.1411478993922;
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.152.205.76 with SMTP id le12ls47207lac.34.gmail; Tue, 23 Sep
 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.89.8 with SMTP id bk8mr5467819lbb.6.1411478992859;
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::231])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6si128177wiy.0.2014.09.23.06.29.52
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::231;
Received: by mail-we0-x231.google.com with SMTP id t60so4588830wes.36
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.77.195 with SMTP id u3mr3548358wjw.115.1411478992733;
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.224.104])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dc9sm2316188wib.5.2014.09.23.06.29.51
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <542175ED.10505@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:30:21 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
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> <CAO7bV+gQQtt4qtnrj6LUWpj5rv5Qpkoy3GaKsg+CewG3-Mw+OA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMDmBpHS_h8ui41oZnKO4kt13KdVCodTa+crWzo3E9hyyBummg@mail.gmail.com> <540B8D1B.8050807@gmail.com> <540F391F.5050002@lojban.org> <540F6802.3070709@gmail.com> <CAO7bV+h6aZ-yozF-HS=Dznird_bp=raPHzosnya3JCqGmWMOGw@mail.gmail.com> <pRGh1o01Z56Cr6M01RGjFG> <5410BD79.6060106@lojban.org>
In-Reply-To: <5410BD79.6060106@lojban.org>
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:c03::231
 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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
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: -

Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 10/09/2014 22:07:
> On 9/10/2014 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote:
>>>         More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not
>>> hundreds of
>>>         conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't sto=
p
>>>         fiddling with the language design.
>>>
>>>     I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not
>>> hundreds of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had
>>> stopped fiddling with the language design.
>
> It is arguable whether any given conlang failed for any particular
> reason, but everything I have read indicates that people move on
> either because a conlang had changed, or because they wanted it to
> change (and many conlangs (especially the Euroclones) that failed
> are little more than modifications to prior conlangs that never
> attracted more than a small fraction of the predecessor.

Either you're using 'conlang' in an opaque or nonstandard sense or you don'=
t know much about conlangs. You seem to think that if a conlang doesn't att=
ract users then it has failed. If a poem doesn't attract many readers, has =
it failed?

>> I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of
>> {1|immutable2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first
>> place, such that deviation from that ranking quenched their interest?
>
> The "deviation" is clearly the lack of a trustworthy standard that
> they can learn from.

Gleki's Russians' overriding requirement was, he reports, codification.

>> You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. You
>> seem to think that a language exists if and only if it has speakers in
>> our world.
>
> That is certainly a requirement according to linguists.

Shouldn't I, a linguist, who knows linguistics, be telling you, who isn't a=
 linguist, and who doesn't know linguistics, what is a requirement?

So no, it is not a requirement "accordding to linguists", if "linguists" me=
ans something more than a particular linguist you had a brief ill-understoo=
d email exchange with back in the 80s.

>> I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do think it's utterly=
 wrong,
>
> When you convince the academic linguistics community, let me know.

When you either have genuinely learnt anything about the academic linguisti=
cs community or are prepared to be educated by a member of it, let me know,=
 and we can continue the discussion. AFAIK, I'm the member of the academic =
linguistics community that knows most about Lojban -- a fact that my profes=
sional peers would probably take to show me to be a waster of time -- and p=
robably the member of the Lojban community that knows most about the academ=
ic linguistics community.

--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.