From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDV54LeBBoEWx9TKw@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 10:22:53 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f140.google.com ([209.85.210.140]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0eOO-0007uT-EB; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:53 -0700 Received: by yxe4 with SMTP id 4sf2112534yxe.28 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:42 -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-spf:received:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent: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=SCE1+E1eUyjdxrU0bUkooWK2FZiWne2uv8KQrx005e0=; b=7N91cD3/e3OM4K2Z0sYZQoG8B5NpAVL5f79gD7NdEHiZx32hA7Ogb8hQ6bXOU8Ug/l oXvO1bN/Gui0KXlv6o5oRIE+YNI7yU7IDfnNBn7+s3GY8qQS5He9GnrY8S2dxxSAbAmS vj3S+h/raFpm2r/jA+jsKIBoc9XsNTVpRUyuM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :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=xPvg2Hlihq3vnmBJnmnUEhpKRpBBliPANP7gxcLTIbvBb+tfCN+aRe90z2y2wzaRo1 y6v99BvX5zpJhJZvx5W9EsiOsr8NLg8UYKgpinNjak+qAa+t3rYNtiFODyLGKNswcuYr Vc1E6Xl/MLX6xA+zyhbZOmpVqr0qOplTNGNIA= Received: by 10.91.91.9 with SMTP id t9mr308853agl.50.1270920149406; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.6.77 with SMTP id 13ls709806bky.3.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.48.214 with SMTP id s22mr109699bkf.6.1270920146517; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.48.214 with SMTP id s22mr109698bkf.6.1270920146135; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f224.google.com (mail-bw0-f224.google.com [209.85.218.224]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 12si196145bwz.13.2010.04.10.10.22.25; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.224 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.224; Received: by bwz24 with SMTP id 24so3608879bwz.37 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.11.22 with SMTP id r22mr1836232bkr.120.1270920144656; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a11sm20635347bkc.15.2010.04.10.10.22.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BC0B3CE.5040005@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:22:22 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) 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> <4BC0355D.1010508@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <4BC0355D.1010508@lojban.org> X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.224 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com 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/b92d68ef3e5004bf Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob LeChevalier, On 10/04/2010 09:22: > 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. I think the Logban project's goal is a work of science rather than art. A g= ood analogy would maybe be a group whose aim is to produce an awesome piece= of open-sourced software, from whose design we could learn much and from w= hose use the world could benefit. You'd want the software to be used, but o= thers would be free to modify the code for their own ends, and you wouldn't= baseline inadequate code just in order to gain users. >> 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. >=20 > I disagree with the definition. Nevertheless, such a definition does not entail the conclusions you drew fr= om it. > > The Lojban language itself is a failure as a logical language, >=20 > Not as JCB defined the phrase. =20 That's true (I believe), but it is a failure as a logical language under th= e prevailing understanding of the phrase (encoding logical structure unambi= guously in a speakable way), and it's that prevailing understanding that at= tracts many to the Logban project in the first place. > And I was dealing with academic linguists who associated artificial=20 > language solely with that sort of thing, or with Esperanto evangelism. I= =20 > 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.) The massive increase in public visibility of invented languages in the last= twenty years has noticeably increased tolerance of their existence. I understand that what JCB alleged to be his original vision for Loglan, i.= e. an experimental Sapir-Whorf test, (and I remain skeptical about whether = this aim ever received more than mere lip-service from him) necessitated th= e involvement of academic linguistics in assessing the outcomes of the expe= riment. So I understand why you felt you had to recruit the interest of lin= guists. But I see several different ways in which the experiment failed in = its design and execution, and no right-minded linguist would study it from = this perspective. (They might study it as a failed experiment -- where and = why things went wrong -- or as a social phenomonon -- the desire of a bunch= of people to work together to create the experiment.) > 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. >=20 > 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. 98% of the interest in Lojban shown by professional linguists has been mine= (or mine and pycyn's if he counts himself as a linguist), so you might con= sider whether to give more weight to my views... (I can think of decent rea= sons not to, mind, such as my eccentricity and my opinion that Lojban isn't= ripe for interesting academic research.)=20 I of course wasn't privy to your conversations with linguists, but I suspec= t part of linguists' response might have been a polite brush-off, and part = might have been based on taking at face value Lojbanists' claims about the = language, without checking the veracity of those claims (and finding it lac= king). It's true that for many linguists a language would become worthy of = study only when it demonstrably being used as languages are used; but the s= ame would go for any invented language, and Lojban would be of no more inte= rest than Klingon or Toki Pona or Esperanto. I think also that the response= s you'd have got from linguists would have been a function of the way you m= ade the case for Lojban being of interest; you've never cared about the log= ical language aspects or shared my vision of the value and scholarly intere= st of such a thing. --And. --=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.