From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 3 12:48:37 1996 Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id MAA00863 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 12:48:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199602031748.MAA00863@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 3E7FA85F ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 12:18:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 08:29:21 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: language committee To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 3412 A thought just occurred to me regarding this committee issue. I think some people are seeing this as a "democracy" vs. "autocracy" issue; others perhaps as a "meritocracy" issue. But there is still another way to look at Lojban decision-making. While people may see my decision-making as autocratic, I know myself that I listen to the community, and that the EFFECTIVE decision-making process is by consensus. One thing about consensus decision-making is that it tends to be very conservative. A "NO" vote counts for far more than a "YES" vote, because a NO vote, especially one backed by some logical reasoning, means that consensus does NOT exist, while a YES vote means merely that the person is going along, and perhaps trying to convince others. Thus if the presumption is that the existing language is ready for publication, then making changes to a considerable extent requires that naysayers to a change be satisfied, or the change does not get implemented. It perhaps is possible that 10 yesses might drown out a single No, but I hope it is seen that we aren't going to have simple majority democratic voting, which is what I have understood the calls for a "democratic" committee" to be. I don't go to the extreme that JCB does and say that any one person, even myself, has an absolute veto on any change, but the presumption has to be that if there is objection, then there is not consensus. A change that is not contradictory to the status quo can have a lower standard - hence it is easier by far to get a change that doesn't render anything currently acceptable wrong or more ambiguous than the present. But any major change to the language needs a solid agreement. Perhaps in this context it is easier to see why I don't go along with Jorge's or Steven's ideas very easily, when I have a few people who have expressed quite publically that they are opposed to further fiddling with the language. It takes more than a couple people agreeing to give me a sense of consensus strong enough that I can carry the argument to the others and expect them to comfortably accept it, especially if even one person among the outspoken does NOt agree. I don;t think that the language will ever be appropriately governed by a democracy, if democracy means decisions by a majority. To throw some numbers out, I would not expect the community to be happy if even 1/4 of a committee objected to an extension of the language, though it might go along. I would certainly expect that a change to the language post-baseline that was NOT simply an extension would require better than a 3/4 majority of those voting though I don't know what figure would work. I think that in language issues "tyranny of the majority" is a real possibility. Language evolution does NOT take place merely because a majoirty of a language community adopts a new usage - the new usage has to become the norm for virtually ALL the language community, such that those not using the change have to be seen as dialectal. I suspect that for grammar-level changes in English, a grammar structure that 75% use and 25% reject is going to be stigmatized as non-standard. Where the answer lies, I am not sure, but I feel real bad that some people think that I am anti-democratic in opposing creating any formal structures or committees to consider language changes. lojbab