Message-Id: <199602040643.IAA19224@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 4 Feb 1996 01:42:33 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: CLD
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4399
Lines: 88

>I thought Lojban was already public domain. Does LLG have more rights now
>than it will have?

No, but since the design is not fully explicated, there is still additional
material that will go into teh public domain when it is written up.

>> After 5 years, if there seems to be need for some further prescriptive
>> work, then people can debate doing so, hopefully in Lojban.
>
>These people can do it now, not just after 5 years.

Well, no one can or will stop people from doing so.  There just will be
the antithesis of support from Lojban Central.

>> I do NOT want any "official" deliberation of changes tot he language to
>> take place during the initial baseline period, because the mere
>> existence of such a committee deliberating changes makes it explicit
>> that such changes are planned, and hence seriously spoils the
>> psychological commitment that the baseline is intended to make.
>
>If your goal is to attract learners & users (which it indeed is) then
>your attitude is very sensible. If your intention is to get things to
>go the way you want them to, then you're going the right way about it.
>If, though, you're also aiming to represent the interests of committed
>lojbanists, then clearly you're failing (in this matter).

Am I?  Are not John and I and Nora and Bob Chassell, etc. NOT committed
Lojbanists because we would rather NOT forever discuss change proposals?
The number of people who are discussing change proposals because they want
the language to change further are fewer than a half dozen.  Meanwhile,
others tend to shut up and bow out just vbecause the debate is this
hypertechnical change proposal related stuff.

>> Every language that has NOT managed to officially terminate the right
>> of fiddlers to deliberate and make changes has failed.
>
>For you the criterion of success is the number of speakers. For me,
>the criterion of success is the quality of the product.

For me the criterion of success is survival with a self-sustaining community.
Most conlangs have dies with their creators, or even sooner when their creators
moved on to something new.  An ever-perfecting language with no speakers
and users is a philsophical game that a few might wish to play, but it will
survive only as long as thise few stay focussed on that solitary goal.

Yes, i would like to see a large and ever-growing community.  But how large
is enough?  large enough that I needn't fear dropping the ball near the goal,
only to lose the game (trying to come up with a somewhat culturally neutral
allusion to any of a few sports).

And yes, I do feel that a language that is not spoken is not a language,
and hence the theoretical stuff that is not used or usable is largely a
waste of time.
But I do recognize that other people like the intellectual game.  I can respect
this, so long as they respect the needs of those who have other goals.

>> The people who are qualified will be the ones who are using the language
>> THEN, and not those of us who are pontificating about it now.
>
>I have confidence in the competence of every current pontificator to
>contribute to the progress of the lojban design.

Perhaps, but the Steven for example has said that he would not feel qualified
to serve in an Academy.

>> I feel that neither I nor LLG-present nor anyone else has any right to
>> bind a community so distant from what it is now, by political
>> decision-making taht none of them would have a say in.

>Since no community is under any compulsion to be bound by what any of us
>decide, I conclude that lae diu is irrelevant.

No communiyt is under compulsion to do anything, but the largest bulk of the
 community seeks the security blanket of a stable langauge description that they
know that everyone will be using.

pc can tell stories far better than I of the late 70s and early 80s, when
 between the time an in-langaue writing was submitted for publication and the
 time
when it was actually published, it invariably became obselescent due to language
changes.  If everyone read Lojban list and all publciations appeared here, that
woudl be one thing, but even now (or maybe especially now with JL suspended)
anything that gets printed in JL when it starts uo again, as well as a large
 quantity of the text on the ftp site, is obsolescent because words, rafsi, and
even grammar have had minor changes, and usages have changed even more
significantly.

lojbab