Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 21:24:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 96737 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 21:24:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 21:24:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.130) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 21:24:36 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:24:36 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.73 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:24:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.73] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: hardlinerism and other categories Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:24:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2001 21:24:36.0590 (UTC) FILETIME=[58DA88E0:01C128F5] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9801 Content-Length: 2128 Lines: 54 la nitcion cusku di'e >In the attitude to Lojban I will conventionally characterise as >'naturalistic', it is objected that 'hardliner' insistence on rigour >(particularly semantic rigour) places unwelcome constraints on creativity. If I may, I would like to open this one-dimensional categorization into a two-dimensional one. Let's consider two "rigor axes": semantic rigor and baseline rigor. We now have four groups, which I will arbitrarily designate as Lojbab, Xod, And, and Xorxes. Lojbab wants absolute baseline rigor, and is not overly concerned about semantic rigor. As long as it doesn't violate the baseline, anything goes, and if you have to do a triple somersault in the air in order to make sense of some baseline rule, then so be it, but the rule stands. Xod doesn't care about either rigor in particular. The point of the language is to communicate, and anything that facilitates communication is acceptable, whether that means taking liberties with the baseline or with strict semantics. And wants semantic rigor to be matched by baseline rigor, so whenever the baseline does not make sense it should be officially fixed. Xorxes cares most about semantic rigor, but doesn't give much of a hoot about the baseline. As it can be seen, Xorxes' position is diametrically opposite to Lojbab's, which explains why they disagree on just about everything, and whenever they find themselves agreeing about something they suspect that they must be misunderstanding each other. Xorxes has an affinity with And in wanting maximum semantic rigor, and an affinity with Xod in giving more importance to the use of the language than to whatever rules are deemed official. Nick falls in all four categories: His usage tends to be naturalistic (Xod), he wants to fix the baseline where it is shown to be broken (And), in his heart he shares some of Lojbab's terror at touching the baseline, but in his mind he knows that Xorxes is right... :) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp