From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:31 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed Dec 13 16:08:02 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: lojban dialectology X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 13 16:08:02 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: > Any intentional change in a language is a "reform". If you had just used > it without mentioning it (at the risk of having this argument whne the > parser objected, then it would not have been a "reform". That would make sense if the grammar writers were reading the Lojban in use. Since that is not the case, usage by itself has no way of influencing the grammar to be published. > And's refusal to use the apostrophje alone qusalifies him as a reformer. We definitely have different ideas about reform then. Do you think that net-Esperantists, who usually use "cx" because of lack of the proper diacritic, are reforming the language? > But being unconventional as opposed to catering to the listener/reader is > at minimum non-Lojbanic - since we presume that the point of the language is > to communicate. Communicating unconventionally is non-Lojbanic? If the point was just to communicate then we would be better off using English, since speaking it is a sine qua non condition for speaking Lojban at this point. i ki'u ma mi'o na ca'o casnu bau la lojban > The use of unconventional behavior to metaphysically make > (I mean metalinguistically) make points about the langauge design is more > characteristic of a language reformer than a language user. There are > no doubt Esperantists who intentionally make the language look bad by being > unconventional too. I get the impression that these people are thought of > as reformers by the rest as well. Yes, Esperantists in general tend to be conservative about the language, but there is nothing in Lojban to be conservative about. Whose style would you consider to be worth imitating? English word order, because it will be the easiest for the audience? > I would prefer to see people "explore" the language by using it. That's what I do. I would love that you would use it from time to time on the list too, so that we might learn from your use rather than from your theories. > When the discussion turns to the pros and cons of various > usages exempt from any context, for the purpose of focussing on the issue, > then you are talking about issues and not about using the langauge. mi na jimpe le du'u frica fi makau co'o mi'e xorxes