From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Dec 26 19:34:19 1999 X-Digest-Num: 321 Message-ID: <44114.321.1754.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 22:34:19 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group Subject: On international applications of Lojban X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1754 The following was posted to Auxlang mailing list by Paul Bartlett. I have been trying for months to figure a way to explain why I support the European Patent usage of Lojban, but have not been willing to commit significant resources to selling the idea. Besides having a dictionary to do, that is ... This sums up one of my major concerns, as to why Lojban as a community may not be quite ready for adoption, even if we can show a good and useful translation of a patent. Maybe people can be looking at what we need to do in order to be able to promote the use of Lojban other than as a toy or as a medium of personal expression (both of these are worthwhile in themselves, but surely are not all that is possible for the language). >Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:36:50 -0500 >From: Paul O Bartlett >Subject: Re: Artificiality, was (Difficulty of Learning Languages) > >On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, Kjell Rehnström wrote (very tiny excerpt): > >> Where are the teachers? > > This brings up a significant problem for the spread and use of >constructed auxiliary languages. There seem to be two approaches >to the matter, although these two approaches are not necessarily >incompatible. > > There are those who take a sort of bottom-up approach. People >should learn IAL X as individuals and club together (if they choose), >informally or somewhat formally in associations. Thus, it is believed, >an IAL will spread as time goes by. > > Others favor a sort of top-down approach. They adovcate adoption >of IAL X by some sort of international or quasi-international body. >One that most frequently comes to mind is the European Union, with its >staggering costs for translation and interpreting services. There >could, of course, be other bodies which might conceivably adopt a >conIAL, such as some agency of the United Nations. > > Although I think that the top-down approach would be a marvelous >thing, it does have a problem: as Kjell said, "Where are the teachers?" >If some body were to adopt a conIAL, I presume that they would want to >be able to get up to speed with it relatively quickly and would want >accuracy in it use. This implies the need for teachers and teaching >materials. Also, I think it likely that before such an auxlang would >be adopted, the potential adoptors would want assurance that the >proposed interlanguage would be up to the job. > > Where are the teachers? Well, Esperanto could probably supply many >of them for instruction in many countries, and I would assess that it >is adequate for the task (although the supersigned letter definitely >work to its disfavor). Latin, strictly speaking, of course, is not a >constructed IAL, but it has been proposed as an international language >again, once adequate terminology has been added for modern things and >concepts. There might be enough teachers to do the job, and Latin has >a proven track record. However, one difficulty with Latin is that I do >not myself foresee everyday diplomats using it conversationally (where >a lot of real work gets done) and in formal debates and discussions. >Then again, one idea is that an auxlang not be used so much in debates >as an intermediary or so-called pivot language for documents and >translations. > > Are any others of today's proposed (con)IALs up to the job in the >sense of having enough teachers and being adequate to the task? To be >honest, I am skeptical. For instance, I like IALA Interlingua, but I >don't know if there are enough teachers and adequate didactic materials >in enough languages to be up to the job. I really doubt that at this >time any other conIAL has much of a realistic chance for consideration >for top-down adoption, whatever its respective merits might be. Ido I >also like, and Occidental is interesting, but I honestly doubt that >either of them has much chance at all for a top-down adoption. Other >languages? I don't think so. > > Thus, I think that the only conIAL with much likelihood for formal >or quasi-formal adoption is Esperanto, with Interlingua a distant >second. And one of the major hurdles, for Esperanto, Interlingua, or >XYZ, is that so many people simply do not take seriously at all the >very idea of a constructed auxiliary. > > Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with bottom-up, and >nothing says that an auxlang has to be adopted formally for it still to >be useful. But, as Mike Farris has pointed out, we have yet to see any >conIAL, including Esperanto, used much for business contracts, other >commercial dealings, scientific papers, or whatever (although >Interlingua was once used partially for scientific abstracts). Thus, >all of them remain largely in the realm of hobby. Whether the >bottom-up approach will be adequate in the long run reamins to be seen. > >-- >Paul >.......................................................... >Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA >Keyserver (0xF383C8F9) or WWW for PGP public key >Home Page: http://www.smart.net/~bartlett ---- lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ " Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.