From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Feb 1 19:00:42 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 SAA27021 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:58:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199602012358.SAA27021@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 274D4862 ; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 16:23:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:35:58 -0600 Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" Sender: Lojban list From: "Steven M. Belknap" Subject: CLD To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2522 The proposed Committee for Language Design is so obviously necessary to the successful development of lojban *after* baselining, that it is difficult for me to understand what the objection to creation of this Committee is. I don't care if the members of the Committee are democratically elected, or randomly selected from a list of *qualified* candidates (at the moment, I would consider myself unqualified), or appointed by lojbab, or even by JCB for that matter (!!) A committee or academy is necessary to assure that further developments/improvements/corrections in the language can be periodically rebaselined. This repetitive baselining is *not* proscriptive, as lojbab has repeatedly implied; speakers always have recourse to slang. I have adopted and's convention of using instead of <'> in part because it is not a completely official semi-slang (and in part because all those apostrophes are ugly and cause problems with search functions on word processors). I believe that slang is an invariable feature of a living language, and I plan to use a lot of slang in my lojban utterances. (Actually, I do so now, although this is largely due to incompetence, rather than intention.) Slang is one way of exploring what a language can do. While I enthusiastically endorse the use of slang, I also endorse the need for an "official" language which is machine parseable, and as fault-free as is reasonable. Only some versioning or official periodic baselining will allow these goals to be met. Surely lojbab does not believe that the language will be complete at initial baselining! The arguments in favor of a lojban academy or committee for language design or whatever have been given repeatedly. What is the argument *against* such a deliberative body? I have yet to see any explanation of a downside. (lojbab has repeatedly stated that the usage of the language will be determined by its speakers, which is of course true. But considering "unofficial" usage to be slang, and encouraging the use of slang will address this concern. Presumably, widely used "good" slang would eventually be given the blessing of the lojban academy, and incorporated into the official language) What exactly is the problem with having a language academy? cohomihe la stivn Steven M. Belknap, M.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria email: sbelknap@uic.edu Voice: 309/671-3403 Fax: 309/671-8413