From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:05 2010 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Dec 11 13:30:58 1995 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: lojban dialectology X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 11 13:30:58 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: >We ought to keep track of the various good ideas, mostly thought up >by Jorge, for improving Lojban, that get rejected by Lojban Central >because of the need to keep promises about getting a version of the >language finished asap. Once those promises are kept, we can then >evolve a dialect incorporating all these improvements. Or in fact we >could start already, trying out these dialectal variants in usage. > >"Better lojban be better than it be finished" - let that be a motto. >Or "Lojban finished is Lojban finished". Instead, why not speak the language as defined and let it evolve NATURALLY rather than by intent? THAT os why I want Lojban "finished" - because it is NOT the purpose of the language design effort to render itself self-sutaining. When people introduce new proposals by intention, that is NOT The same thing as happens in natlangs. lojbab