From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Feb 5 11:35:33 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 LAA29340 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 11:35:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199602051635.LAA29340@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 51964B62 ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 11:05:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 09:48:39 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: JCB on change To: sbelknap@UIC.EDU Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3330 >Regarding my construction, I want to point out that JCB wrote a bit >on single-source primitives (gismu in lojban). For what its worth, he >apparently accepted this activity for Loglan. There was a period of time in the mid-70s, just before thedictionary was written, when JCB attempted to make use of the language in everyday life in his family. He did not have a mechanism for fu'ivla. Therefore he himself coined many "I-prims" and "S-prims". He eliminated a few of these in the 4th edition, but not many. But with GMR and the capability for fu'ivla, his position significantly changed against single-source gismu. (Technically one has trouble calling his "I-prims" single source, since his claim is that these words are found in many or most of the world's languages in the indicated form.) So I will ask for your references. Which edition and section number, or what issue of TL. The fact that almost none ofthe single-source gismu proposed in the TL era made it into 4th edition Loglan 1 shows that he no loinger considers these coinings very positively. >I think we >need to also acknowledge the admirable audacity and genius of the man for >the mammoth task he undertook, and also acknowledge that perhaps his >approach may have been well thought out, if perhaps not perfectly carried >out. I have been first in line for such praise, though I think it is safely said that my comrade-leaders of the community haven't generally shared my opinion to such an extent. >I urge all interested in lojban to >obtain a copy of loglan 1 (fourth edition) by James Cooke Brown. There's a >lot of interesting stuff in there. I guess I need to repost Athelstan's and mine review of 4th edition L1 - a book that reflected most poorlt the genius of it author. There is very little in 4th edition L1 that improves on 3rd edition, and considering how much the language evolved in 15 years, little sign that lessons were learned. I must also say that we long ago expressly set an LLG policy diametrically opposed to JCB's attitude regarding continuing change in the language. Considering that he has a book and we don't, I would look at the relative sizes and activity levels of the two communities to see which approach is desired by the logical language community. >It is a damn shame that JCB, McIvor and many others with much to contribute >are not working on lojban today. %^) McIvor has many times said the reverse- Too bad that Lojbab and others with so much to contribute are not working on Loglan today. JCB wasn't moved by these comments, to say the least. %^) >Perhaps if we were all fluent >Loglan/lojban speakers we could have been more successful in our . Since JCB rejects your "polti" as a legitimate Loglan community activity, I venture to bet thatif you had been more successful, you would now be less in opposition to Lojban Central's policy %^) I wont' go much into your long quote from L1, but I will note that JCB does say that additions to the content words will be far more common than additions to the cmavo, and these in turn will be more common than grammar changes (highly paraphrased of course). And that there would be massive resistence to the latter two. He is right - massive resistance. lojbab