Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:48:07 -0700
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Message-id: <01HKKZ1HOB3Q0003NZ@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3289
Lines: 68

Chris:
>> My point is: I think it's possible for a person with some linguistic
>> training to deliberately and thoughtfully use "le" and "lo" as prescribed.
>> You've shown me how the word requires some social stigma in addition to its
>> grammatical rules, but I don't see the problem with that.  Social and
>> grammatical rules are equally learnable and followable, aren't they?
 
And:
>Would this be a specific usage convention for "lo", or part of a blanket
>injunction to be literal? Either way, is this really part of Lojban?
>
>But it is possible. Someone uses "lo" nonliterally, & it can be pointed
>out to them: "Look, when you do this it's like saying 'fuck' in polite
>company".
>
>But let it not be so.
 
I don't think that would be necessary.  If "lo" has no other use but as a
veridiciality particle, I just don't think people would bother to use it if
they didn't want to be literal.  (the hole in this argument may be that
since the quantifiers are different, they'll ignore veridiciality and choose
based on the quantifiers)
 
>What do you think will fall apart?
 
This business about asking questions versus demanding information, or using
figurative speech.  I think they're likely to fall apart, but I'm not sure.
I'm less convinced that veridicial "lo" will fall apart, because it doesn't
seem as extreme an example to me, but you've convinced me it should be on
the list of things that might not work.
 
I also fear that the place structures of gismu and especially lujvo may not
stick too well once there are people using Lojban without dictionaries in
front of them.
 
>All well and good. But is the whip cracking just to make sure we as
>non-native speakers of Lojban get it right, or is there an additional
>intention to get Lojban usage to be not only grammatical but conforming
>to prescribed conventions?
 
Given that "lojban" contains veridiciality, and veridiciality crosses the
line from grammar into convention, then the thing called "Lojban" contains
elements of grammar and convention.  If such whip cracking occurs, then, it
may cross the line from grammar into convention.
 
I'm not at all oblivious to your objections; I hardly want to see a fascist
kind of atmosphere at future Lojban gatherings, where people feel unable to
try to use the language in a way that seems natural to them.  But people
willing to go out of their way to learn a made-up language are likely to be
willing to learn a few elements of what amounts to a made-up culture as
well, aren't they?  Not really through "whip-cracking" but voluntarily.  If
some part of that ends up being pointless, it's no big loss.
 
I guess I'm broadly agreeing with you except that 1) I'd rather leave the
final decision up to usage rather than eliminate it now, 2) I still think
its chances of surviving the usage test are greater than you do, and 3) I'm
being conservative because all the discussed on this list over the past year
that I've been involved have made me impatient to see Lojban baselined once
and for all :-)
 
But obviously if there are real, significant flaws, we really do have to fix
them now...
 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~