Message-Id: <199602101534.RAA08708@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:33:06 -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:      *old response to Steven B #3
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 24616
Lines: 468

More delayed responses.  I answered the first part of this post.

>>Date:         Sat, 16 Dec 1995 15:32:40 -0600
>>From: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
>>Subject:      la lojban zasni
>
>The issue being discussed is "change."  We are talking about how change
>is going to be managed in lojban, both before and after baselining.

We know how it is managed before baselining.  After baselining, there
will be NO formal changes except for something truly broken, because
that is what a baseline means.

>Two aspects of change are being discussed.  The first issue is *much*
>less imporant than the second.  Less important first.
>
>First, there are various improvements, extensions, and clarifications to
>the grammer, cmavo and gismu.  For example, there are the (related)
>issues of Guttman scales, standards, fuzziness, and cardinality, which
>are discussed in a long series of posts.  When lojbab gets to the end of
>these posts, I would be most interested in lojbabs opinion as to how
>lojban should deal with these issues.  I believe that some of these
>issues are best resolved with constructions already existing in lojban
>by the process Jorge designates "language exploration."  However, I
>believe *some* of these issues are best resolved by extensions to the
>language or changes to the language:  the inclusion of the selmaho <xoi>
>and the abolition of standard positions in gismu are the only two that I
>strongly feel require changes/extensions.

Both proposals stand as rejected at this point.  A decided lack of
consensus being one good reason; the late date is the other.

At this point (and indeed for the last 2-3 years since we baselined the
grammar) we have not sought to find the "best resolution" to problems,
in the sole sense of "most technically correct or useful".  "Best
resolution" for problems has by definition meant "the solution that
achieves functionality with minimal change or relearning".  ONLY when
"brokenness" achieves a truly dangerous-to-the-language threshold, do we
look at solutions that are other than minimal change.  As I have said at
other times, in addition Cowan has taken it upon himself to propose a
few changes, almost all extensions, which sytematize the language in a
way that makes his presentation in the reference grammar easier.  In
almost all such cases, there has been no usage of the features being
changed.

Otherwise, we have ALWAYS attempted to solve problems first by trying to
adopt a solution using conventions upon hitherto unexplored grammatical
usages.  Sometimes, we have added a cmavo to an existing selma'o.
Almost never do we consider adding a selma'o (the current proposal ju'e
is an example where we TRIED desperately to put the cmavo into an
existing selma'o only to find that doing so raised more questions than
it resolved, hence it rated a grammar change - BUT the lambda marker has
been debated for *2 years* before we reached the point of accepting a
grammar change.  I personally LIKE that kind of resistance to change.

In the case of the fuzzy-logic problems, I am unconvinced that there is
anything to the problem that absolutely CANNOT be handled by the current
system.  Given that fuzziness is always handled in natlangs by some
added verbosity (and then not nearly as precisely as Steven would like),
I see no precedent in the natlangs that justifies making a major change
to the language (and any grammar change now is by definition "major"
because it affects book publication and baselines).  I see a decided
lack of consensus on whether any change is needed at all (e.g.  Peter's
criticisms, whether valid or not), and a fair amount of evidence that no
one is exactly sure what is REALLY required to properly handle fuzzy
logic.

And unlike Steven, I have NO particular bother in adding several
syllables to an otherwise imprecise sentence in order to achieve
precision.  This is the Lojbanic way - prenexes for example add several
syllables in return for increased precision.  Likewise greater precision
in the meanaing of tanru requires verbosity.

I am thus content to stick with the status quo, see how much of the
world of fuzzy logic is covered trusting in the fact that we have built
far more hooks for that sort of thing into Lojban than any natlang has
(not to mention conlangs and computer languages).  If the research field
of fuzzy logic advances and coalesces behind a specific usage/convention
that is not well handled by Lojban, then there is argument to try to
consciously introduce a new structure into the language.  Otherwise we
are groping in the dark, adding features with no real capability to
think out their consequences.

Meanwhile, there will be a language baseline, and if such a construct is
needed, it will have to FIRST be added informally, by actually using it
and seeing if other people can understand the usage in real time Lojban
(as Jorge claims to have done with some of his recent proposals - I
don't know if us old timers would understand these usages of course
because none of us has time to read Lojban).

>Second, and more importantly, there is the issue of how change is to be
>managed in the language once it is baselined.

In natural languages change is not "managed".  It "happens" and people
cope with it.  There are in most natural languages plenty of
conservative forces to prescriptively constrain changes to what will
work consistently with the existing thought patterns of the language.
Those patterns in Lojban right now include syntactic unambiguity, and
the community seems to value that feature, so I am reasonably sure that
no usage will easily creep into the language that cannot be YACCed.  But
the decision will no longer be solely that of Lojban Central.

>JCB doubtless believed he had good reasons for managing change in Loglan
>in the manner that he did.

Well, to the extent that he can be said to have "managed" change, I
guess so.  I view what has happened in TLI Loglan is succeeding waves of
relatively unconstrained change, followed by most of the changes being
summarily dumped simply because they never made it into JCB's dialect
and hence were forgotten when he went to write some book or other
document.  In other words, the effective corporate memory of the TLI
Loglan community was that of one person.  More recently he has a Loglan
Academy, and changes have taken place a bit more controlledly, but until
JCB writes another book, we won't know whether he will retain/abide by
his own rules.  This is NOT true of Lojban.  We have a good-sized group
of people comprising Lojban Central, and no one person is writing all
the books or claiming to have total knowledge of the langauge as it is
or should be.

Actually, I rather like pc's characterization of JCB's style.  It
"feels" accurate:
>Then he practiced
>participatory autocracy:  he let everybody talk, ignored everything they
>said, did what he wanted to do, and then tried to make it appear that
>the result was what everyone had said they wanted.  Happily, (for the
>most part) JCB had a clear vision of his language and so what he came up
>with worked pretty well, actually solved problems people had raised
>("ignored" was maybe too strong a word, he came somehow to discover for
>himself what others were trying to point out to him), and -- down to the
>Great Morphological Revolution -- kept the language fairly downward
>compatible.  Unfortunately (for governance, but not for the language),
>it also gave the discussants the idea that they had some stake in the
>language.  When they tried to exercise that assumed stake, they were cut
>off and informed that they had no such stake for it was ALL HIS, as
>indeed it was in most real senses.

Back to Steven:
>As I understand it, lojbab's approach is a participative leadership
>style until the language is baselined, and then an abdication of
>leadership, with change henceforth to be managed laissez-faire by the
>speakers of lojban, with no formal apparatus.

Reasonably accurate for "before"; inaccurate for "after".

There will be NO "abdication of leadership", unless I get so sick of
Lojban change discussions that >I< drop out in disgust.

But leadership in the post baseline world will be primarily by example.
I MAY preach history and status quo a little when I am in teaching mode,
and I will certainly answer questions about history and status quo, but
I for one would relish the requirement that any change proposals be
written and discussed solely in Lojban %^).  My answer to a change
proposal written in English will be .ienai ba'ena go'i

Only by writing IN Lojban do I expect that I will retain any significant
long term influence on the direction of the language.  And that is as it
should be.  But IF I write in Lojban, I have little doubt that my
writings will have considerable prescriptive force "by example".

>This approach will lead to serious problems, and we will eventually have
>to adopt some formal apparatus to deal with rebaselining the language
>periodically, as informed by usage and future insights as to the
>strength/weaknesses of the language.

This already exists.  There will be some sort of review committee in 5
years or so.  The LLG voting membership will decide the rules.  That
membership right now is considerably anti-change.

>For those of us now interested in lojban, this approach means we are
>each putting pressure on lojbab to include our favorite extensions to
>the language now before the baselining.

I can take the pressure %^) I can also say "na go'i".  It takes a LOT of
pressure to counter that which I have felt from the voting membership
for the last 3 years, pressure that is in favor of saying "no" to
*everything*.

>If we could be reassurred that there will be an (eventual) opportunity
>to rebaseline the language, perhaps those with proposed grammer changes
>would feel less adamant about including those changes in the initial
>baselining.

Whether there will be such an opportunity is NOT up to me, nor are most
of the people who will decide participating in this discussion or even
necessarily capable of doing so.

But political climates change, and no doubt if there are real problems
and there is considerable sentiment from a good portion of the community
for change (and that I strongly suspect will NOT include proposals from
individuals - proposals that haven't been widely discussed by the
community in Lojban).

>The de facto result of this will be that those changes which lojbab
>believes ought to be included in the language at baseline will be
>immortalized, and the (possibly valuable) inclusion of others will be
>impeded.

Yep.  But then "valuable" in Lojban has a place structure that includes
a "valuer", and I doubt that there will be any changes excluded that are
highly valued by piro or even piso'i loi lojbo.

>Leadership styles run the gamut from rigid and autocratic to constantly
>shifting and anarchic.  There are successful examples of leadership all
>along this spectrum; some endeavors require more heirarchy, others
>require near chaos to work effectively.  The key point here is that the
>nature of the endeavor has a lot to do with whether a given leadership
>style will be successful.  Thus a person designated as a leader must
>carefully consider how he will establish a style which will make success
>possible.  If a leader fails to tailor his leadership style to the
>endeavor, then the success of the endeavor will be imperiled.

Just about now, I wonder if this discussion of leadershsip is one that
would stand eminently as one that should be conducted in Lojban (even if
I would not be participating) - the points you are making, unlike msot
of what gets discussed in the language are intellectual without being
technical.  We haven't had too many topics like that.  So define your
leadership styles in Lojban terms!

Suffice it to say that the dispersed and chaotic nature of the language
community means that any hierarchical system of leadership is bound to
fail.  Simply put, the hierarchy has no authority over the language. the
language design is explicitly in the public domain, and the community is
spread over several continents, with the major distribution avenue being
the astoundingly chaotic WWW.  As the community grows, and is less
beholden to Lojban Central, as will inevitably be the case once books
are published, there is NO leadership that will work without the consent
and indeed active acquiescense of those being led.

Since we don't have the vaguest idea what the nature of that community
will be like after the books are done, we cannot really plan for it.
Certainly not in any formal sense.  Whether we accept de jure what is
true de facto, LLG will have NO power once the books are done, unless
people choose to give us that power.

>>From Jorge's and lojbabs discussion on change:
>>>This is a matter of public relations.
>>
>>And one that JCB managed horribly, and which we will manage horribly as well
>>if we cannot present the image of standing very firm against change.
>
>I strongly disagree.  Standing firm against change is not the right
>lesson to learn from the JCB-Loglan experience.

I daresay that most Lojbanists who were not around in the JCB era (and
who haven't read the archived history as Cowan has) have little idea
what lessonms must be learned from that history.

>Rather, matching the leadership style to the project at hand is the
>right lesson.  JCB failed to choose the most effective leadership style
>for Loglan

On the contrary - he chose a VERY effective leadership style.  But one
that provided no way for the leader to gracefully withdraw or transfer
or share power/authority - and JCB wants to do other things besides
Loglan in his limited remaining life.  Everytime he has tried to do so,
however, the community collapsed (or blew up) in his face.

>But a constitutional language convention ought to be scheduled for the
>end of the five years.

>The genius of documents like the US Constitution is that they have a
>built in apparatus for amending the document.

And the greater genius is that the process is so difficult that almost
no changes get through the process.

Imagine how stable the US Constitution would have remained stable were
there explicit provision for a new convention after some definite time.
Indeed, at present, it is the fear of the changes such a convention
might wrought that keeps any amendment (such as the current balanced
budget amendment that might invoke a convention) from going the route
prescribed by the Consitutition that allows for a convention.

And the Constitution has an army and physical territory to back its
jurisdiction.  Yet in the final analysis the Constitution is probably
NOT up to the demands of the net, which has so much of its existence
outside the effective jurisdiction of the strutures created by the
Constitution.

So too with Lojban, only more so.  There are NO structures or
authorities that we can create that will have authority over the
language in the long term.  Indeed, I have argued both legal and morally
that no person or group SHOULD have authority over a language in the
long term.  That philosophy is truly an underpinning of LLG - we would
not have been founded if we didn't believe that the users of a language
have ultimate authority, and we would not have fought and would not have
won our legal case against TLI if we did not have the moral and legal
position that a language cannot be owned (nor controlled after the
manner of an "owner".)

>If there is a broad consensus for formal recognition and inclusion of
>the various "slang" extensions and changes which have entered the
>language, then the implications of these extensions and changes should
>be carefully worked out, and then a "lojban language academy" consisting
>of interested experts should deliberate.

The existence of a TLI Loglan Academy, among other reasons, and the
history of its dealings, militates against the founders of the community
finding it politically tenable to establish a formal Lojban Academy.

>As I've indicated, I believe that the issue of establishing a procedure
>for periodically rebaselining lojban is more important than getting the
>initial lojban baseline exactly right.  For example, if and's suggested
><xoi> were included in the initial version of lojban, I will be very
>pleased.  If it is not, there are two possibilities:
>
>A. No formal lojban revisions.  If this is true, I will lose interest in
>lojban, and probably not spend much more effort on learning or speaking
>it.  (Unless I can convince myself that there is some other slick method
>of doing the same thing that doesn't take 15 syllables)

I am sure there is.  But if there isn't then you need to show that the
Zipfean necessity of how often the construction will be used warrants a
usage that is fewer than 15 syllables.  I seriously doubt that
precise-fuzziness, which is how I categorize your proposals, will be
used enough that mostl people will care whether it takes 15 syllables or
not.

And while we value you and every other member of the community, I can
say that anyone who sets a condition on their support that some
particular change be adopted is liable to be disappointed.

>2. As part of the new version release, assure that there is a
>well-defined, nonambiguous translation algorithm from la papinomoi
>lojban -> la papipamoi lojban (or whatever).  Thus all well-formed
>extant texts can be translated.

If there is a well-defined, nonambiguous translation possible, then the
existing language can adequately handle the communication covered by the
proposed change, and that change is not necessary.  I suspect that such
changes will ONLY occur if there is Zipfean pressure for the change -
i.e. usage demands brevity.

>3. Agree to a standard notation for lojban version specification; for
>example, at the beginning of an utterance, the version of lojban to be
>used could be specified.

This needs no formal system or authority.  The language has the
structure for such metalinguistic statements built in.

>4. Emphasize that there will be considerable tolerance to experimental
>additions/changes to lojban among the lojban community.

I cannot state this, because I don't know it to be true.  Indeed, I
suspect that it will be false - that there will be considerable
resistance to experiments except in small, isolated, groups within the
community that interact little with those not favoring their change.
Thus your proposed "xoi" would likely find acceptance in a group of
medical or other technical people who find that kind of precise
fuzziness valuable.  The feature will be ignored by everyone else.  It
will become adopted by the community at large only if a) you achieve
commercial application for the language using your feature (most people
will find a nonoffensive usage acceptable if there is money in it %^) or
b) you find substantial non-technical application for the usage - enough
that it enters colloquial use.

>5. Maintain a list of recognized problems in lojban.  As solutions
>appear, propose them for inclusion in the next version of lojban.
>Maintain a specification of "proposed, but still under consideration"
>changes/additions/extensions as part of the formal definition of the
>language.

That list is enormous already, but there is little consensus that any
given problem is truly a "problem".

>>And as John just mentioned
>>to be today, the problem in writing these thinsg is not the writing itself,
>>but in deciding what to write about.  That last year's discussion of lo/le
>>and family will have ENORMOUS impact on what he evenutally writes on the
>>logic paper, i am sure.
>
>Perhaps John and lojbab are trying to do too much for the baseline. If we
>build in a mechanism for eventual revision, then it will be easier for them
>to get the first version done, as they will be less concerned about making
>everything optimal.

We now have considerable evidence about the effects of baselines on the
community.  Virtually everything that has been baselined and has entered
actual usage has been considered inviolate for later change.  I am
fairly convinced that th policy we have, against any outside-imposed
changes after a few years of baseline, will be the de facto reality -
that the community will overwhelmingly reject any formal change that
mandates existing usages as incorrect.

And there are natural limtis to what can be put in the language by
simple, language-preserving, extension.

After 5 years, I HOPE that ALL of the language will have seen extensive
use.  And this means de facto that all of the language will be
considered relatively inviolate to change.

This is what Cowan and I face when we make decisions about what to put
in the books about the language for this initial publication - we KNOW
that anything we say, even if "wrong" or less than ideal, will likely
become very difficult to change once the books see print.

This is why I in particular am loathe to try new "experiments" at this
late date.  There is no longer enough time that any given experiment
will likely see enough usage test that we will find the holes before the
books are published.  This likelihood is enhanced by the absence from
active Lojban usage of many of the most skilled users of the language,
absence that will likely NOT end before the books are done.

For example, I HATE to consider any language change without getting Nick
Nicholas's opinion as the most skilled user of the language at the
present time in SPITE of his inactivity.  But he may not even be on the
net for 2 months, and in any case has been pretty clear that he doesn't
have time for the grammar debates.

>>>> John and I have found, and presume that others find it as well, that the
>>>> image of instability affects those of us working on learning or using the
>>>> language FAR MORE than the changes themselves.
>>>
>>>Then let's change that image. You should not react so violently to changes
>>>that have no effect whatsoever on learning
>
>Agreed.  Change in and of itself shouldn't be absolutely forbidden.

Any change that affects a baseline document has an effect on learning.
This is because the baseline documents are what people are and will be
learning from for the first few years until we have a multiplicity of
textbooks, dictionaries and refgrammars (which WILL happen if the
language catches on).

>The French and Brazilian Portuguese academies provide use with an
>opportunity to learn from the experience of others.  There is a reason
>why such language academies exist.

And the English-speaking populace in particular has always rejected the
very concept of an academy as anathema to freedom.

Alas, I am a native English speaker, raised in the anti-establishment
anarchy of California.  I am leading a predominantlt English-native
community whose largest identifiable subgroup with affiliation with a
political philosophy is small-l "libertarian" - a philsophy that rejects
central authority in favor of individual freedom as much as is humanly
possible.

This is NOT a community that is going to accept authority very easily.
And I am nothing if not a political realist.

>>This must be done, of course. But most of the problems and solutions
>>will probably not require as much modification of the grammar rules,
>>as modification in how we interpret those rules.
>
>There are solutions and then there are solutions.  As you noted in your
>discussion of ju'e+stag+bo vs stag+bo as logical connective, some
>utterances can get unwieldy, and a shorter utterance may be preferable.
>Same thing with <xoi> and fuzziness.  This is the sort of thing I mean.

I don't think that ANYONE has nearly enough experience with using the
language to label a usage as unwieldy through length.  Indeed, usage
frequencies of different constructs will differ from person to person.
(ju'e+)stag+bo is something that has probably come up but rarely (if at
all) in Lojban usage around here, although Jorge considers it frequent.
And the difference is but 2 syllables.  Lojban usage COMMONLY tolerates
one extra unnecessary syllable without it being considered unwieldy - we
add in extra unneeded terminators all the time.  Again with fuzzy
expressions.  No one else except you has ever asked for these, and they
thus have not seen any usage to my knowledge even in the "15 extra
syllable" form that you are afraid will be the only alternative.  But
how can we make any claims about what will be unwieldy, when we are
talking about constructs that are rarely used, and we have no one
skilled enough in the language to make honest judgements about
unwieldiness anyway.


lojbab