From nicholas@uci.edu Mon Sep 17 15:35:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 17 Sep 2001 22:35:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 1974 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2001 18:06:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2001 18:06:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Sep 2001 18:06:28 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19715; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:06:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:06:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: logical language and usage deciding Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10801 *sigh* I agree with And's message on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10745 I believe that And, pc, me, the Grand Poobah, whoever, have the absolute right to debate what the logical, rigorous version of the language should look like, and indeed, to make proposals based on that debate. A Lojban community in which I don't have that right is a Lojban community I don't care to be part of. I believe that Lojbanists striving for a rigorous version of Lojban is a good and noble thing, and a valid pursuit, given why many people are involved with Lojban in the first place. If the outcome (as I've discussed with xod, and as And has apparently independently concluded) is diglossia, then that's OK; I doubt the two variants of the language will be that massively different, and in Usage (there's that word again), there will inevitably be a convergence, or a blurring, between the two anyway. On the flipside, I recognise also that the debates get interminable, repeated, rehashed, and unresolved. This is a known problem, and contrary to what many may think, I think most of the debaters want this problem solved. Hopefully it will be in time. And yet I also agree with Lojbab. There's a saying from World Championship Wrestling I'd like to adduce (because it's appropriate to the level of kerfuffling, after all): Don't just sing it, bring it. If the logical pontificating is to have any relevance to reality, if I personally want Lojban to move in the direction of rigour, then it is my responsibility to *use* Lojban in that fashion. The proof is in the pudding. The point of Lojban for me, after all, is not just that there be a logical language (if I want Predicate Logic, I know where to find it), but that there be a human-*speakable* Predicate Logic. To be explicit on the mailing list about things I've said on the Wiki: there are things being proposed in Lojban which I intensely dislike. I don't mean rafsi or attitudinals; I may think some aspects of them ill-thought out, but I am not, and cannot, suggest they be uprooted from the language; they are part of it, and I am committed to the stability of the language (the recent exceptions to that commitment, I would like to think, prove the rule.) I mean rather things mooted for introduction. I am against type 4 fu'ivla; I am against experimental gismu. I have my reasons; I won't bore you with them again --- see "fundamentalism" on the Wiki. But I cannot stop people from using them. It will not work that way. I've made my arguments, I've presented my case, but I cannot enforce it. So if I don't like it, it's my responsibility to not just sing it, but to bring it. It's my responsibility to use Lojban the way I think is right, and offer my usage into the Arena. This goes with seljvajvo, ce'u, big-endian dates, and anything else that has struck my fancy. If my example takes, I win; if it doesn't, I lose. But saying what should be is not going to be enough. I recognise that if the issues of debate don't actually come up in usage, where the two conflicting interpretations actually lead to misunderstanding, then Jay is absolutely entitled not to care about the debates. I think he's wrong, but the onus is not on him to accept it, but on me to prove it --- again, by usage. If usage is not affected by the debate issue du jour, and you'll get the same Lojban output for the same Lojban input for either interpretation, then that doesn't mean the issue is no longer interesting --- but it does mean it's probably no longer interesting to most Lojbanists. So let the logicians continue debating it in a cordoned-off corner; and get on with your life. If, on the other hand, it does matter, and there is a real potential for misunderstanding, then the naturalist will have to listen to the hardliner, because the hardliner has some pertinent arguments, given the origins of the language. She doesn't have to obey him, but she does have to listen. On the other hand, the hardliner has to demonstrate feasibility by attempting to use what she preaches: she has to adopt the naturalist's methodology. If And won't do it, and if I think what And says on a particular issue is right, then I have no problem doing it for him. (As soon as I'm able to find out what he may or may not have said. :-) A responsible Lojbanist is a Lojbanist who cares for the stability of the language. Both naturalists and hardliners have demonstrated this responsibility. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain cohesion in this language, as it is for all conlangs. But I think we're still committed to trying. *shrug* Dunno if I've helped or harmed; whatever. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing I REJECT {gumri} nicholas@uci.edu (Lojban Wiki, Resurrected Gismu)