Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:37 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA03325; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:34:53 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26805; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:20:58 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA03803; Mon, 3 Feb 92 15:20:54 EST Message-Id: <9202032020.AA03803@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 7904; Mon, 03 Feb 92 15:19:33 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 0155; Mon, 03 Feb 92 15:18:42 EST Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 20:18:12 +0000 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: baselines & usage X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, conlang@buphy.bu.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 03 Feb 92 09:14:00 EST.) <3101.9202031859@ucl.ac.uk Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 3 15:37:39 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN > Lojbab writes: > > >Really Bruce??? Lojban crystalized too soon? Loglan is some 35 years old. > >How long is long enough? What I find particularly odd is Lojban's conjunction of rigid baselines on the one hand, and on the other hand leaving vast tracts of the language to be determined by usage. For example, gismu place structures are baselined, but the meaning of the gismu is merely vaguely indicated by a keyword, and the Lojban community is left to negotiate the word meanings among themselves. We are told that Lojban users complain if the grammar changes, yet most of it - the semantics - never will be baselined. From what Lojbab has said to me, it seems that the policy is to baseline as much as possible, except for the semantics, because Lojbab & his colleagues haven't the time or (he claimed) competence to create the semantics. This vacuum where much of the semantics would be in a natural language undermines the merits of the prescriptiveness of the rest of the grammar. It would make more sense to: (a) abandon all baselines, simply offering offering the fruits of the Lojbanists' considerable linguafactive talents to the community to do with what they will, OR (b) make a commitment to the eventual baselining of all the grammar, including the semantics (and add a couple of decades or more to the date for the final baseline). I offer this posting simply as an observation. I'm not really grinding any axe, because I can't decide whether I'd vote for (a) or for (b) if it had been put to a vote. It strikes me that my observations could well be applied to many other artificial languages. These develop a fraction of a grammar, baseline it, and don't go on to tackle the rest of the grammar. Lojban, at least, has developed a grammar that covers more than any other artificial language I know of, and so could be said to be tending towards option (b) rather than dithering on the fence. --- And.