From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 03 18:48:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 86275 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2006 01:37:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2006 01:37:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2006 01:37:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxZrI-0001Yb-DG for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:37:48 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxZpy-0001Y3-Hq; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:36:28 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxZpX-0001Xd-2u for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:35:59 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxZpU-0001XV-Tv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:35:58 -0700 Received: (qmail 20225 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jul 2006 01:35:55 -0000 Message-ID: <20060704013555.20223.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.146.136] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:35:55 PDT Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:35:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <44A99334.2030200@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11893 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: [hobyrne: Alphabet] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=ifVS35bl-Ius1sJTb4MV1I2tbTbGgw4krEXr2MRnfsyA17W3oQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26319 --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > > If there was *no* pursuit of perfection, there wouldn't even be the > *beginning* of Lojban. I don't understand where perfection comes into Lojban. Historically of course Jim Brown got the idea for the key component of Loglan (Lojban's ancestor) from Logical Positivists' notion of a logically perfect language. But that was not what he was trying to build, rather an instrument to perform some some sociological experiments. The program has grown from that, to be sure, but perfection was (we being relatively sane) never a goal -- some improvements in some areas would be nice. Nor is it at all clear what Lojban might be aiming at perfection in. > Hm, that probably doesn't answer the point you're trying to make. > Quibbling is inevitable. It is even desirable, so long as discourse > remains civil and reasonable. It is how alternate ideas are tested for > fitness. It's not always seen as a fair test by all the participants. > (For my part, I'll try not to grumble too much.) I enjoy the > intellectual stimulation I'm gaining from this discourse. I understand > the very important distinction between phonetic and phonemic better now > than I did before, I've seen even more writing methods that interest me, > and even language concepts. > > Anyway, I'm into having a quibble now and then, it's fun. Yes indeed, tough it is better when you do the research and can back up what you bring to the quibblethon. > Hm, that still probably doesn't answer the point you're trying to make. > I know I'm on a molehill. I am being loud, and vocal, because this > molehill is smack in the middle of the entrance to one of the most > beautiful lands I've known. Many people don't look this way, or take it > for granted that it's a part of the landscape, probably *because* it's > right at the entrance. If I make a mountain out of it, overshadow or > crowd out other issues, tell me; I'll back off. But I *am* standing on > a molehill, and I think it's a crying shame this smear is here, small as > it is, when it doesn't have to be (or, at the very least, could be made > smaller). I am unsure what your allegory here is: the molehill is the issue of how Lojban is spelled? And it is the first thing that people come to in coming to the language? But why a molehill -- which I presume means that it is undesirable (or at least is a sign that there are moles, which are undesirable -- what are the moles here?)? But, in any case, you have yet to explain why this is a smear -- from the point of what Lojban is about. You don't like it but yours is not yet a developed Lojbanic aesthetic. > Hm, I'm not sure even that's it. I don't want to get into a situation > where I can't speak to others, or others can't speak to me. But I don't > think I'm going in that direction. > > I think there is room to move in the direction of Perfection. I think > it only right and proper to point this out, explain where necessary, and > champion the cause. Lojban was a *major* move in the direction of > Perfection, and many people now benefit from it. This move will be less > benefit, but still, it will be benefit, in the long term, and it is > still worthy, IMHO. Still don't see what perfection Lojban is a move toward nor how it moves that way. And I can't find anything in the "philosophy" of Lojban that gives a clue. Nor, of course, how using something other than the Latin alphabet (there are a lot of alternatives available and discussed in detail) will move the cause along. DSince the Latin alphabet fits Lojban exactly, no other system can improve upon it in that respect (the most important one for monodialectal languages). The alternatives -- aside from being cute or pandering to some cult -- seem at most to be in the direction of meeting the dyslexia/noisy context problem (not a bad idea, but not a Lojban priority, as countless cases of built-in confusability show). > Hm. Some, or all, or none of the above may or may not be relavent to > what you wrote (or didn't write). > > Anyway. You can't accuse me of not using Lojban as a participatory > activity! :) I will, however, note that so far as I have sen, you have not used Lojban at all. You have taken the topic of Lojban as a place to set up an argument, but the argument is in English (thank God!) and has not been supplemented by any pasaages by you in Lojban. > > Hence my stance toward the language I ultimately chose to learn, > > Lojban, has been to embrace it -- warts and all -- because it's better > > for my purposes than a language that doesn't even attempt its goals. > > Consider that. I encourage you to adopt that attitude and you will be > > happier and find more success. Many of us will enjoy using VS with > > you, but it will never become the standard. > > I love Lojban! Even with its warts! Didn't I say that already? I love > Lojban! I'll shout it from the hilltops: I love Lojban! I'll hire a > skywriter to... well... no. ahem. Given that you don't seem to know Lojban nor much about it, I worry that this is just the illusion of love, emotional but not enduring. Do get in deeper and see how well you like it from somewhere inside. I like your passion but think it is currently poorly directed and not based on sufficient information. I hope you can correct these defects and keep the passion. A well-nformed and apssionate adversary is almost as good as a similar companion. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.