From lojban+bncCN673cmqFBC-64DeBBoEhF9mGA@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 01:24:56 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Vzo-0002cS-22 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:24:56 -0700 Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5sf2169244gyd.16 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:24:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rlZdOnJaQaOFI1ICl0k7E3OI07yNdhH0eaWpLkIYXus=; b=NTJNpdY2UxsEOWb9YLb95vSIYENhRxP0wQd7E1si3VGPtfqyN+p9/oY5aoaJE6lAuE DYIjlMB/DIjg3igE5TYU+bgSfmjZJan7CmBnTwge9gIL4I4att3ReUoTAND3/2KlLSgq T8e8cnaqVH2RzBekUEungnHz7VD1HjIYUEuws= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=O6MbNNBo5dsRyJs4XM4Ujr2pTu+WJ70wwn75UPcayFYGVT7RgL31zQ/UGXk2otp0yu 18BrOCN+hp69wDGUbnRmMHKe9oNlrx6y+bkEhgCBBL8OR21oUfgqG+rfQsCMYWTeENUc c8hMXB/2FME6gM1vWOiz5+lVe6CMfspoys8ZA= Received: by 10.150.250.5 with SMTP id x5mr31203ybh.13.1270887870829; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.238.15 with SMTP id l15ls121558ybh.1.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.250.4 with SMTP id x4mr1146523ybh.16.1270887869084; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.110.12 with SMTP id n12mr1764290agm.12.1270887654372; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.110.12 with SMTP id n12mr1764289agm.12.1270887654351; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net (eastrmmtao106.cox.net [68.230.240.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si195233ywh.7.2010.04.10.01.20.54; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.48 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.48; Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100410082053.HTBJ26523.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:20:53 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.225.124]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 3kLt1e0052hfrC602kLtPJ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:20:53 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=garkv6WxUlWCZxlYffz6yNGlDVHTZyAXTUdcTJEJ4sc= c=1 sm=1 a=f8h2ccynpPgA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=pgKWClcNZxnod9imkHcA:9 a=wlWAdpY5MSp9wUGniywA:7 a=nokUTHpIP-WaMCiX_dIUTiHSMhwA:4 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4BC0355D.1010508@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:22:53 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <20100409014708.GB11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BBF5FB4.5070608@gmail.com> <4BBF76A1.4000604@lojban.org> <4BBFF024.2080101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BBFF024.2080101@gmail.com> X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.48 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/e2c6bb92872ed9e1 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And Rosta wrote: > Bob LeChevalier, On 09/04/2010 19:49: >> And Rosta wrote: >> >>> Pierre: >>> >>>> Can we have some Lojbanists accepting some, but not all, of the=20 >>>> rulings of the BPFK? >>> >>> The usage of Lojbanists would and should be unregulated. The=20 >>> declaration of Lojban would exist to be used freely however people=20 >>> choose. >> >> A bunch of rules that no one will ever use - sounds like a form of=20 >> mental masturbation (or since this is a group effort, an orgy=20 >> thereof). But then I've always tended to disparage conlang-making,=20 >> where the process of language-making is the point, and not the result. >> >> Some people do want to work with Lojban as a mental toy, and we have=20 >> to allow for that. But more, I think, want to communicate with it,=20 >> which is what sets Lojban apart from most of the hundreds of conlangs=20 >> that are out there. >=20 > Need I spell out the contempt that your similes deserve? No. I understand, and I apologize for any contempt that seemed implicit=20 in the simile. I got a little carried away and thought it was a=20 sufficiently funny mixed metaphor to override the potential=20 offensiveness. My humor has gotten more salty in recent years. > Perhaps you would dismiss I "dismiss" nothing at all. I'm not particularly appreciative of art for its own sake. I know=20 others are, but I am me. People who invent conlangs that they do not=20 intend people to use, engaging in "the secret vice" - I recognize they=20 are doing something they love and they are often quite talented and=20 gifted people. But I feel none of that myself, and think that mindset=20 is poison to something like Lojban, where it is important, indeed vital,=20 to several goals, that it be used, skillfully, by people. And unfortunately, in the first few years, I was dealing with lots of=20 such people, who didn't understand me and what we were trying to do any=20 more than I understood them. And I was dealing with academic linguists who associated artificial=20 language solely with that sort of thing, or with Esperanto evangelism.=20 I fought hard, for several years, to neutralize that negativism, and I=20 think I succeeded - Lojban has managed a couple of academic citations,=20 and I started getting enough positives in correspondence and at=20 interactions at a couple of linguistic conferences I attended, that=20 people started thinking we were bona fide and serious about making=20 Lojban linguistically credible. (Getting called Dr LeChevalier was a=20 bit of egoboo, even if the title is unearned.) My feelings aren't hostile or dismissive towards such things, *except*=20 in the context of Lojban. And especially when those things threaten to=20 be schismatic - you and I went round on that issue several years ago. > And anyway, you've missed the point in various ways. The fact that a=20 > language is a set of rules (definitional rules, not rules regulating=20 > behaviour) does not entail that nobody uses the rules or that nobody=20 > wants to use them. I disagree with the definition. Merriam-Webster > 1 a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them= =20 > used and understood by a community used, community > b (1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action o= f the vocal organs > (2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use o= f conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood mean= ings communication > (3) : the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ide= as or feelings =20 > (4) : the means by which animals communicate > (5) : a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in l= ogic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible ex= pressions=20 only at definition 5 does your definition appear, and it is lower than=20 animal communications in list. And yet I've known lots of linguists who=20 don't consider computer languages to be language (nor animal=20 communications). Indeed some don't consider pidgins to be "language", and artificial=20 languages are dismissed as are computer languages. I also refer to Lojban "bangu" which also requires communicative usage.=20 bangu is not the tanru for "sign-system". If my use of English=20 "language" is malylojbo, it wouldn't be a first time. > The Lojban language itself is a failure as a logical language, Not as JCB defined the phrase. The trouble is, to the linguists I've=20 dealt with (excepting you, since you just self-identified as one in=20 another post), Lojban is not YET a success as a language period, and=20 won't be a language until it has a native speaker community. I've been able to talk with some such people and bring them around to=20 ways that they might consider Lojban linguistically interesting without=20 being a proper "language". But it always requires demonstrable and=20 probably fluent usage for communication. --=20 Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.