From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Oct 04 07:27:33 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 04 Oct 2002 07:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-15.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.115]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xTQI-0001HE-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 07:27:22 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-133.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.133]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D42D20A6A for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:23:21 +0200 (DST) From: "And Rosta" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:24:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021003163618.C95321-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1901 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list xod: > On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Lionel Vidal wrote: > > How can you decide who is and who is not a user of the language? > > There are students who are using the language at a low level, and there > are people who have publically stated their refusal to learn the language > towards fluency. They decide themselves, not me! AFAIK the only people who have baldly stated a refusal to learn are those Lojbab tells us about, who say they refuse to learn an unstable language. The closest thing to a public statement is me, who refuses to make a *deliberate effort* to learn the language (or any other) towards fluency. In this regard I can, I believe, be bracketed with John; we both know a lot about the language, though not through a deliberate effort to learn, and fluency in itself is not a compelling goal. I wouldn't object if someone refused to heed what I say about Lojban on the grounds that I lack the requisite credentials, but I would object if they did so as part of a debate with me on some point of grammar or if they objected to my very participation in debates. > > And then usage is only one of the criteria to judge the relevance > > of a "prescription" (I would like proposal as a better word), > > and in the case of lojban, except for a handle of people who can > > claim a minimum fluency, the less important one. Education, culture, > > general and linguistic knowledge, experience, etc. can produce > > the most and practically useful improvements to the language. > > > > To give you an example on a connected subject, most linguists > > specialised in some languages know them perfectly in their > > intimate mechanism and discuss relevently of the specific > > means used to convey meanings (which is kind of what jboske is > > all about), but are not users. Most of them are not even fluent > > in them. > > I hear you. But the more contributions come from outside the using body, > the more it is engineered, and the less it is evolving "naturally". Of > course, when a language is barely in existence, and nobody yet uses it, > only one of those options is possible. But we're long past that. Even when a language is barely in existence, it can still evolve naturally, in the manner of pidgins. I think it's fair to say that the naturalists (see wiki) want Lojban to evolve as a pidgin, while the hardliners want it to remain an engineered language. Even though each group has a hard time sympathizing (or at least empathizing) with the other, neither school is illegitimate. BTW, I mean 'pidgin' as a technical term, not as a derogatory term meaning "bad Lojban". --And.