From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Jul 17 11:04:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 18:04:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 37492 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 18:02:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 18:02:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 18:02:27 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (169.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.169]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6HI2L278744 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010717135439.00c30540@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:06:28 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716234526.00c28580@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8684 At 06:04 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > I think that there is little point in bothering to come > > up with short forms before we see that people are using the long versions > > for something. > >This is idiotic. It is already abundantly clear that given the choice of >(a) saying exactly what one means however longwinded the current resources >of Lojban make it, or (b) saying approximately what one means, but saying >it succinctly and in accord with the style biases built in to the language, >99% of people choose (b). The point is that, unless we have some (a) usages, we have no evidence that anyone even WANTS to say "(a)" as evidence to justify the short forms. The short forms we did put in the language were justified based on natlang usages. We don't have nearly enough Lojban usage especially of the sort of obscurities being referred to, to justify adorning the language with more baroquenesses in order to handle the once in a blue moon when someone would wish to use them. Every rule in the language has to be taught and learned in order to be used and useful. The language is already straining at the limits of what is easy to teach, and we don't even have usage examples on which to base teaching of these new ideas, merely the idea that they might be useful. At best, they would be in the back chapters of the most advanced textbook anyway. >And this is hardly surprising, since these 99% of people have as their >main goal successful *communication* (i.e. being understood), with a >style as elegant as possible. Elegant in Lojban need not be defined as "brief". > And since, as we know full well from natlangs, >it is not necessary to be longwindedly precise (or even, it is necesssary to >not be longwindedly precise), in order to be understood, longwinded things >will see no usage because nobody wants to say it badly enough to put up with >the longwindedness. Alternatively, no one will want to say it badly enough to learn yet another cmavo and grammar construction as an exception to the norm. >Usage is like water: rather than flowing north, south, east or west in the >direction of what the speaker wants to express, it flows downhill in the >direction of the biases built in to the language. For usage to to be driven >primarily by what people want to express, the biases would have to be removed. Look at the patterns of abbreviation, and we see that long words exist and then people using them a lot come up with short forms. Only rarely does someone come up with an abbreviation and then coin a long form that corresponds to it that has never actually been used before the short form. But as you know, I have little interest in (but >not little goodwill for) Lojban usage (or in parole in general) but much >interest in Lojban design (and in langue in general), and hence I am >interested in cataloguing hypothetical improvements to the design. I know, and we have every interest in getting people to *stop* thinking in terms of Lojban design and hypothetical improvements to the design. Thus we are by nature forced to be in opposition. I am obliged to oppose you on principle while being fully committed to your right to do so despite by opposition. Isn't my job fun? lojbab -- lojbab 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: http://www.lojban.org