Message-Id: <199602050214.EAA10910@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 4 Feb 1996 18:12:41 -0800
Reply-To: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      language committee
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 5281
Lines: 112

stivn>
>
>> What is the argument *against* such
>>a deliberative body?

lojbab:
 The more that a central body seems to be controlling the
>language, the more that people will feel that the language belongs NOT to
>the speakers, [deletions]
>And that is morally opposite our initial premise in setting up LLG.

[deletions]
>
>We set up LLG to revert to JCB's initial commitment to the community, and I
>cannot and will not go back on that commitment.


djer:

The "central body" that I am proposing here differs in many respects
from JCB's central body.  It is designed to represent the aspirations
of the LLG, not to oppose them.  While it is an ever present danger
that any committee can degenerate into the moral equivalent of a lynch
mob, democratic processes exist that are designed to prevent groups
from functioning in a "tyranny of the majority" mode.  For example, I
agree with you that language change should not be possible with a
simple majority. Not in my se cukta.


When a committee is representative  of and committed to the community
it represents, it will not deviate very far from the needs of that
community. So I don't see that you would be compromising your
fundamental principles that caused you and Nora to establish LLG.  It's
not a case of substituting the dictatorship of a committee for the
dictatorship of a proprietor. It's a case of encouraging the unlimited
experimentation etc. and incorporating the best into an evolving
language.

As I write I can look over and see my old IBM XT that runs on pcdos
3.3.  It is seldom used now and soon will be given away. The computer I
am typing on is also scheduled for replacement.  I had to learn some
unix and vi just to be on this list.  All languages are a moving target
and lifelong learning is a fact of professional life.  I'm past
retirement age, and learning is not so easy as it once was.  My mind is
cluttered with old TLI words like clivu that I'll never use. I have a
box full of tapes, cards, and books from TLI that are lost in my
garage. It seems like yesterday that I supported you in your initial
break from TLI, but it is not. One thing I am sure of is that lojban
2001 will not be lojban 1996.


And has pointed out that we have a far better language, and certainly a
language with more potential for growth, than TLI loglan.  This is a
direct result of yours and Nora's  courage and commitment to bring the
language public, to reform its words, to test and debug it, to allow
experimentation.  But the work is not and cannot be complete ever, any
more than formal mathematics is a finished enterprise. This is a
principle of logic.

Because a logic-based language is a completely new species, a mutation,
in the taxonomy of languages, natural or constructed, we cannot predict
by analogy what the future of lojban will be.  The main difference from
all other spoken languages is the requirement for unambiguous parsing by
machine. That is why analogies to computer languages (which are
parseable) are more probably correct.  But there are no speakable
computer languages either, and so we cannot be sure how our language
will behave in the future.  If we were to abandon machine parseability,
I would agree that no language commitee is necessary, and the language
could fly or crash.  But so long as we do link lojban to a machine
grammar, the only responsible thing to do is to control, yes _control_
its evolution by democratic _process_.  Very careful, well thought out,
deliberate, democratic process.

As to the form that democratic process takes, I think the best we can
do is to emulate the structures of the world's oldest and largest
working democracy.  But even that is open to question and I think a
discussion should take place on and off the net as to how "formal
structures or committes to consider language changes" should be
constituted.


lojbab:

>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.

djer:

I never took it that you were anti-democratic in the sense of
indifference to the needs of your entire constituency. It's the curse
of leadership that not everyone can be satisfied. But setting up a
criterion of near total consensus for change can frustrate the will of
a large majority. Total consensus criteria for change can lead to
inactivity such as the UN security council had during the cold war.

Actually no one knows whether or not there is substantial sentiment for
a CLD and of course as you say, that would also depend on the specific
form the CLD would take as well as its operating rules.  I think we
should continue our discussion on and off the net about the desirabilty
of a CLD and and then form a "commitee for the committee on language
change". It could define just what democratic processes would be used by
the CLD to effect language change, and a full LLG could ratify it.

I know that's a lot, but I am convinced that something like this is
essential to maintain cohesiveness and facilitate growth of the LLG in
these times of social schizophrenia.  Language is the bond that unites
and perpetuates communities, and I would hope that lojban will do this
as well as any natural language.

djer