From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Jan 25 01:56:47 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA08234 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 01:56:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199601250656.BAA08234@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 39F05010 ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 1:27:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:09:04 -0800 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: Re: ro broda/ro lo broda To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 5264 >To: Gerald Koenig >Status: RO > >>>The era of 5 years has not yet begun. >> >>djer> >>I guess that depends on who you are. Lojbab is our president so I will >>quote him: (deletions) >>lojbab> > >As I have indicated elsewhere, the question of what ro broda or ci broda >is equivalent to is a semantics question and not a grammar question - it does >not affect the YACC grammar and hence is not part of any baseline yet >established. There will probably be something said about the matter in the >refgrammar though, which will make it semi-baselined by the simple act of >publishing the book, in that people have been far more reluctant to change >things once they have seen print. djer> Whether a change is propagated from usage to the grammar or from grammar to usage, the long term result is the same. Clearly the usage and the YACC grammar specification cannot be allowed to diverge if we want a single "logical language." lojbab> > >The "democratic" mode of change that will exist after the baseline will >be that people can use it the langauge,a nd if they misuse the language and >are understood, the deviation may come to be acceptable Lojban. Such misuses >may include actual improvements, as well as illogical garbage. Hopefully >the commitment of most active users of the language to retaining its intended >character will mean that illogical changes that crop up in usage will be >rejected by the community either naturally, or upon the illogic being pointed >out to them. That process will be democratic in that anyone can make a >change, anyone else can accept or reject it, and anyone can try to convince >other Lojbanists that a usage that is catching on violates the spirit of the >language and should be rejected. In 5 years we'll see if the changes that >have survived leave the language intact and make one final attempt to ensure >that the language is on a "true" path, but the procedures and real effect of > that post-5 year abnalysis are indeterminate. As someone pointed out, the >Esperanto Academy is NOT able to invoke changes or resolutions of disputes as >to what the language is any longer. this will undoubtedly be true of Lojban >as well, once the community reaches some level of robustness. > >lojbab I think your view of the future of lojban as a kind of laissez-faire linguistic darwinism where the fit innovations survive is unduly pessimistic. I'd like to believe that we can do better than the Esperanto Academy. So long as we believe we must repeat their experience, our belief will be self-fulfilling and create the reality. The problem with conlangs so far is simply a lack of genuine democratic process. We know even from recent world history what happens to political structures that are paternalistic and male-dominated. We have men struggling for control at all costs. The search for consensual truth goes by the board. Lojban will degenerate into a kind of intellectual Rwanda or undergo Balkanization if it continues its present course. We will learn from conlang history or we will repeat it. Witness the current struggle concerning ro, dapoi and existence. There has been no opportunity to let genuine democratic process work inside a parlimentary structure before a forced decision must be made to publish the refgrammar on schedule. A consensus could be reached on this matter with time, leadership, and an academy. Let the refgrammar follow the community, not vice versa. That is the direction of the flow in the generation of laws in a democracy. They are changed by the same mechanism. As to my specific concerns on the set vs logic definition of quantifiers,I will only state very briefly here that the structure "[PA] lo [PA] broda" uses "lo" to mean "taken from a set of" broda and creates a set of broda, while number has been defined without reference to sets. Nowhere in the dictionary is "lo" so defined. This convention stretches the use of idiom beyond the elastic limit. I can't say more without falling into the illogical position of taking part in decision-making by cabal, and violating my public commitment not to participate in grammar initiatives that are outside a structured democratic process. Anyway, my position on the quantifier issue is already on record from a discussion on the list, and I will e-mail it to you and anyone else who wants to review it if asked. I am serious about not being a party to change by executive decree, and will not take part in any more language change discussions until there exists a functioning democratic process with the same rules for all. I have no way of knowing that my proposals are any more important than Colin's, Xorxes', yours, Cowan's, Chris's or Vilva's, Stivn's, etc. until some democratic machinery is in operation. Pc is on another plane as far as I am concerned, but I doubt that he would mind equal footing. It's your unenviable position as symbolic parent of this organization to be the one to stop all the swordplay, knock heads together, and get us playing constructively. You won't be able to do it without a lot of help from Mother Democracy and Lady Luck. djer