Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:25:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712041525.KAA07302@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: On Lojban X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2347 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 4 10:26:11 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: > BUT, because of the learning curve and the reluctance of people to > start, I feel that it is necessary to get a large core of people > started learning what you would consider the less refined generic > language, having them avoid the bad habits we have identified > (like certain kinds of metaphor, unmarked sumti raising and > attitudinals, etc), and then using thos larger more skilled body > of speakers to refine the language to the more "perfected" goal. > I see the difference between the two more a matter of ensuring good > habits of usage than one of adjusting the baselined language. > Thus we will come to increase the number of bad habits to be > avoided, and indeed may add specific good habits to aim for. I agree with this, and the debates that you moan about are conducted to support the furtherance of the aims you state here. > Beleive it or not, this whole issue was debated around 15 years > ago. I believe it. Progress is always made through discussions of a helical nature. > JCB and Jeff Prothero and perhaps others were involved. The > conclusion that was reached was that Loglan Mark I would be the > best we could do, but that almost certainly that there would be a > Loglan Mark II that would as much more logical than Loglan Mark I > as the latter is compared to English. But that it would take a > group of designers thoroughly fluent in Loglan Mark I and indeed > perhaps a whole community to support them, in order to have to > insight into logic and language necessary to do the design. I wonder why they came to this conclusion. For example, I am anything but fluent in Lojban, but to the extent that anyone is expert in Lojban semantics, I am. > Thus my immediate practical goal is somewhat less than what you > would prefer but I recognize the long term aim as being the same > as what you seek. I am willing to defer the higher goal because > I am convinced by that prior discussion that it is likely to > proceed that way anyhow, and I an cinvinced by the developments > of the last 5 years or so, that indeed the fine semantics and > logical analysis of the language will be much easier as time goes > on, just as each year has brought us ever more refiend insights > into usage. There clearly is progress in the refinement of our insights, but it is due to the ongoing debates. --And