From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 09 22:05:54 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3337 ; Fri, 09 Jun 95 22:05:49 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 09 Jun 95 01:43:55 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa15537; 9 Jun 95 2:43 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id aa13074; 8 Jun 95 13:44 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8251; Thu, 08 Jun 95 08:40:26 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6149; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:29:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:30:09 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Purpose of the gismu list X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506081344.aa13074@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R Missed sending 1 message yesterday. I'm sure I'll be forgiven %^) >I think I misinterpreted the purpose of the gismu list, then. Is it >supposed to be a guide for how you hope the language will actually be >used? I thought it was the sort of thing that someone will go back in >20 years or so and revise based on what people actually use in practice; >but that's not entirely true if there are places that people will never >bother to fill. > >(On the other hand, there might be places used only in descriptions. >For instance, The purpose of the gismu list and all of our other documents is to be as thorough and lasting a language prescription as possible given time and circumstances. The more thorough the prescription, the more likely that a large category of possible Lojbanists will come to try to learn and use it. Underspecification may cause/allow some people to guess, but for other people, they just avoid trying. We know there are minor flaws (and perhaps some major ones?) in the language, and more specifically in the details. As the language passes from its prescriptive to descriptive phase, these will be discovered, and usage will then supersede the prescription if the problem causes sufficient discomfort to a language user that he ignores some rule. In addition, fluent speakers may tend to make consistent errors based on what seems natural for them in the language. Consistent errors will come to be understood as the norm, and in the descriptive phase, will become the new dictionary entry. Usage by fluent speakers and writers will always have more influence on me than even a carefully argued proposal for change, unless it deals with a critical design element for the language like the logical aspects, where we have reason to believe that natural inclinations might not (at least initially) be valid for the purpose of the language. In some cases, the gismu places serve as a fairly detailed definition of the word. Thus in your example: >jakne x1 is a rocket [vehicle] propelled by jet expelling x2 carrying >payload x3 jakne is clearly defined as a vehicle with a payload and a jet. If it is missing one of those things, it is probably not a jakne, even if it might be described as a "rocket" in English, and you may want to look for another word. This helps you separate the meanings of the words from their English keywords. My experience is that the place structures have been the most effective way to show such distinctions in meaning. Since a rocket always has a payload and a jet, even if they are not specified, you may then make inferences about the context in which the word appears. One of the best examples I think is the word xamgu x1 is good for x2 by standard x3. It has even changed my English - I am now quite prone when someone uses the word "good" to instinctively ask "for whom", and to recognize that the standard of goodness is always relative. Yet I doubt that I have ever used or specified the x3 place of xamgu, and I rarely do so with x2 either. Nor do I in English - BUT I think about what the word means a bit more and thus am more careful in my usage. For a while we went overboard, as I mentioned recently, adding a lot of places that made people very certain about what the word meant, and to think careful how they applied the word, but really added nothing useful - the discussion of klupe/screw shows the boundary at which we came to feel usefulness turns into pedantry. Leaving the place in that word, allows someone to identify a "klupe" in something that may not necessarily be called a "screw" in English - e.g. a "bolt" because we have specifically mentioned threads. Likewise, someone may recognize a mruli in a rock wielded by someone's arm. But you no longer have to define the blade (and shape) and handle of a shovel because other than being bladed in some sense, the focus is shifted primarily to what it is intended to dig. Yet, I doubt that most people will need to specify the parts of a mruli or a klupe, nor what the canpa is supposed to dig. Will these places disappear with time? I'm not sure. I doubt that they would disappear before we could write a Lojban-only dictionary, even if they weren't used. More likely is that some place structures will change, with higher numbered places that are more useful moving to the front. And such moving will make it easier for us to focus on the always-omitted place, perhaps allowing us to look for usage that indicates that it is or is not playing a real role in determining the actual meaning in usage of the gismu. But the latter is how I see meanings changing - not by fiat from dictionary writers or by proposer who think they see a better way. We will "let usage decide". lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 For the artificial language Loglan/Lojban, see ftp.cs.yale.edu /pub/lojban or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/"