Message-Id: <199602131455.JAA17375@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 06:12:52 -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: *old response to Steven B #4
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: O
Content-Length: 3171

>> And Rosta likes it because it is a list where he can actually learn
>> some linguistics, but that isn't our main purpose.  We are ALREADY
>> losing people, scaring them off by our arcana. That has GOT to stop,
>> and be replaced by people USING the language.
>
>Your ends would be most easily achieved by adopting my suggestion and
>splitting the list into a tech/arcane and a general list.

It was proposed at the last LogFest, and Cowan was going to do so, but
has not had time (and the reaction on trhe list to the idea seemed
rather lukewarm anyway).  It would probably not work though, because
of the people who post on Lojban List right now, almost all of them would
be psoting on the arcana list, and no one would bother posting to the other
list.  Alas the experienced Lojbanists seldom talk except in Lojban or
in Arcaneban, leaving little for the novice.  Maybe splitting so that the
arcana was off list and the Lojban stayed on-list would help, in that the
change in dominant focus might prompt more novices to TRY the language.


The point is moot for now.  We don't have control over our list host, and are
there at their sufferance.  It is thus a little awkward to ask tnem to
support an additional list.

Perhaps when the refgrammar is published, arcana-arguments will dwindle or
switch to Lojban (which will probably dwindle them indirectly), and the
problem will go away, or perhaps be sufficently small that Veijo could host
a list for such discussions. But I suspect that Lojban Central would not
read an arcana list after the book is published so you might not want the
split after all.  We really intend that we stop designing the language after
the baseline %^)

>> It is my intent and sincere hope that the debates will die away once
>> the books are done and nothing anyone says is really going to affect
>> usage. But that latter clause has to be true or it won't die away.
>
>It may happen that usage will be impervious to admonition from
>prescriptivists. But I hope not, since inevitably usage will sometimes
>tend to drift away from the semantic prescription.

Drift away from the prescription as already set forth can take place with
in-Lojban correction by more experienced Lojbanists, just as improper
grammar can be dealt with.  But this is not the imposing of new prescription,
merely the dead hand of the past prescription living on.  That past
prescription support is what is done when adults teach children natlangs
and correct their errors.  The process is of course imperfact and there is
drift, but it is SLOW, and it is not consciously directed towards change
by the adults.

And in any event the  discussion of arcana in Lojban, to the extent that a
few will be up to the challenge, will undoubtedly NOT be as dominant as the
status quo English arcana discussion, because there will be fewer
participants to sustain it.  We might see the reverse of the status
quo, where Goran gets little reading of his non-arcana, becasue too many
people are trying to follow the arcana discussions.  Most of us do not have
time for both.  After the baseline, I for one can ignore the arcana, and
become a real alanguage user again.

lojbab