From sentto-44114-16600-1034219244-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Oct 09 20:16:46 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n40.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.108]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zToW-0000J2-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:16:42 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16600-1034219244-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n40.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Oct 2002 03:07:24 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 10 Oct 2002 03:07:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 86324 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 03:07:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2002 03:07:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-5.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.105) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 03:07:23 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-191.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.191]) by mailbox-5.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD34815CB3 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 05:07:21 +0200 (DST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021009134220.031c4310@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:09:00 +0100 Subject: [lojban] Usage deciding (was: RE: Re: [Announcement] The Alice Translation Has Moved And Changed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2094 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Lojbab: > > In saying this, I mean only to point out that what > >xorxes does was formerly generally held to constitute Right and > >Proper behaviour of the good lojbanist. > > I think you misunderstand what was held as "Right and Proper". Before Jboske and the wiki, innovative proposals would be posted to Lojban list, and you would reply firstly that the publicly visible existence of the proposals scares off potential learners, and secondly that it is pointless to simply advertise proposals on the list if one wanted to get them adopted and that the only way to get them adopted would be through force of usage. Nobody took this to heart more than xorxes. So yes, the Right and Proper conduct was held to be using the language in its official dialect warts and all, rather than in a cleaned-up dialect. But failing that, the Right and Proper way to propagate a cleaned-up dialect was to use it rather than advertise it. > >So (and note that I am not flaming here) when you and Jay come along > >saying it is sinful to violate the baseline in one's usage, this is a clear > >deviation from what at one time was the relatively consensual position > >of the community. > > It is indeed "sinful" to insist on a violation of the baseline in one's > usage, once it has been identified as a violation of the baseline. Such > insistence is the rejection of the concept of consensus and abiding thereby > (since the baseline represents a snapshot of what consensus is at some > point in time), so arguing on a consensual basis that rejection of the > consensus is a good thing seems self-contradictory, or at least > bloody-mindedness. I was going to say that I think you've changed your tune, but in fact I think you played two not quite compatible tunes. I can't face the ordeal of trawling the archives to prove my point, but I would lay money that you posted messages that in context at least strongly implied that someone disatisfied with Official Lojban should not whinge or clamour for change but should instead use an unofficial dialect and let it vie with other dialects in the arena of usage. Whatever criteria you use to measure consensus must be peculiar. There was something approximating a consensus that there should be a baseline, but not necessarily on the reasons for it existing (the extremes would be that the baseline is an absolute unchallengeable definition of the language and that the baseline is a vacuous PR gimmick). If it is true that content of the baseline ever represented a snapshot of what the consensus was at some point in time, that point in time must have antedated the baseline by several years, for in the five years prior to the baseline I don't recall there being any attempt to establish whether there was consensus. Rather, the content of the baseline was presented as a fait accompli that, by virtue of being a realization of antique Loglan goals, was immune from the need to be subject to consensus. --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/