From lojban+bncCK6u3p69DBCB_4LeBBoEppWcvA@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 11:12:42 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f166.google.com ([209.85.221.166]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0fAZ-00030p-MY; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:42 -0700 Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38sf4266451qyk.1 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:29 -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:received :references:to:subject:date:x-aol-ip:in-reply-to:x-mb-message-source :mime-version:from:x-mb-message-type:x-mailer:received:message-id :x-spam-flag:x-aol-sender: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; bh=CUtX1gRvwHVqq5X0/kzojAk8RCDNDHs+gxKKzRlfacc=; b=JsF+4sA4WYSatuC0DZPLPpDvIL1QeyoSrdl92/WlNx/cuPwk7lgdEiWmEFg7bFQas8 bIm8Lub5Pmj7R8PF1XcnngALLhsSzJxaJo7dacpkjDl8Yny8gFb6KdcUgwFmHxntqpbt zZX6xYnyL5UhS4TWztoKWNzq+gbu4ahM4l7AI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:references:to:subject:date:x-aol-ip :in-reply-to:x-mb-message-source:mime-version:from:x-mb-message-type :x-mailer:message-id:x-spam-flag:x-aol-sender :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; b=l5PqPvPUmZ9mUcTEKFnhlbKxU9uwv3bnCwG7jl9/1gzFrzisMJQGv1R02Avgvw3w2l cuJtXu+j0XGa7AjZ8ovWfq+e91pBulnM40l3vqruQF1SKJv2aECbRB65pjXvNKXkEmXK axq0Nl6OIujyJV0g8AZZKlRnryVvIlKIIGT6I= Received: by 10.229.106.3 with SMTP id v3mr55511qco.6.1270923137415; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.34.9 with SMTP id j9ls490098qcd.3.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.196 with SMTP id u4mr119816qcu.27.1270923134918; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.196 with SMTP id u4mr119815qcu.27.1270923134823; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (imr-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.206.39]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si346986qyk.12.2010.04.10.11.12.14; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of Thirderivative@aol.com designates 64.12.206.39 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.12.206.39; Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o3AIC0FG014805 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:12:00 -0400 Received: from Thirderivative@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id r.d6d.422ca96 (43987) for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-me02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-me02.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.103]) by cia-dd05.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD054-b2c74bc0bf6314d; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:11:51 -0400 Received: from webmail-d035 (webmail-d035.sim.aol.com [205.188.181.91]) by smtprly-me02.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYME023-b2c74bc0bf6314d; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:11:47 -0400 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> <4BC0B3CE.5040005@gmail.com> To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:11:47 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 76.8.216.14 In-Reply-To: <4BC0B3CE.5040005@gmail.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Seth X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 31423-STANDARD Received: from 76.8.216.14 by webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.91) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:11:47 -0400 Message-Id: <8CCA6F068EC8210-1A3C-934F@webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag: NO X-AOL-SENDER: Thirderivative@aol.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of Thirderivative@aol.com designates 64.12.206.39 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=Thirderivative@aol.com X-Original-Sender: thirderivative@aol.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/ee24e218405c19de Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CCA6F06B49204E_1A3C_1203B_webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com" ----------MB_8CCA6F06B49204E_1A3C_1203B_webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 =20 I just finished my senior thesis for my bachelor in linguistics. I did it = on conlangery and lojban, with much opposition from my class and other ling= uistics professors i asked for advice. pretty much every linguist i have en= countered thinks conlangs are abominations, not worth even acknowledging. w= hich is why i am not a fan of linguistics, despite formally being a linguis= t. we will get nothing from them no matter what we do. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 11:22 am Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" Bob LeChevalier, On 10/04/2010 09:22:=20 > I'm not particularly appreciative of art for its own sake. I know > othe= rs are, but I am me. People who invent conlangs that they do not > intend = people to use, engaging in "the secret vice" - I recognize they > are doing= something they love and they are often quite talented and > gifted people.= But I feel none of that myself, and think that mindset > is poison to som= ething like Lojban, where it is important, indeed vital, > to several goals= , that it be used, skillfully, by people.=20 =20 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.=20 =20 >> And anyway, you've missed the point in various ways. The fact that a >> = language is a set of rules (definitional rules, not rules regulating >> beh= aviour) does not entail that nobody uses the rules or that nobody >> wants = to use them.=20 > > I disagree with the definition.=20 =20 Nevertheless, such a definition does not entail the conclusions you drew fr= om it.=20 =20 > > 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.=20 =20 > And I was dealing with academic linguists who associated artificial > lan= guage solely with that sort of thing, or with Esperanto evangelism. I > fou= ght hard, for several years, to neutralize that negativism, and I > think I= succeeded - Lojban has managed a couple of academic citations, > and I sta= rted getting enough positives in correspondence and at > interactions at a = couple of linguistic conferences I attended, that > people started thinking= we were bona fide and serious about making > Lojban linguistically credibl= e. (Getting called Dr LeChevalier was a > bit of egoboo, even if the title= is unearned.)=20 =20 The massive increase in public visibility of invented languages in the last= twenty years has noticeably increased tolerance of their existence.=20 =20 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.)=20 =20 > The trouble is, to the linguists I've > dealt with (excepting you, since = you just self-identified as one in > another post), Lojban is not YET a suc= cess as a language period, and > 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 >= ways that they might consider Lojban linguistically interesting without > = being a proper "language". But it always requires demonstrable and > proba= bly fluent usage for communication.=20 =20 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.=20 =20 --And.=20 =20 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group.=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.=20 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.=20 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.=20 =20 --=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. ----------MB_8CCA6F06B49204E_1A3C_1203B_webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

 I j= ust finished my senior thesis for my bachelor in linguistics. I did it on c= onlangery and lojban, with much opposition from my class and other linguist= ics professors i asked for advice. pretty much every linguist i have encoun= tered thinks conlangs are abominations, not worth even acknowledging. which= is why i am not a fan of linguistics, despite formally being a linguist. we will get nothing from = them no matter what we do.


-----Original Message-----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 11:22 am
Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"
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 vita= l,=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 regulati= ng=20 >> behaviour) does not entail that nobody uses the rules or that nobo= dy=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,&n= bsp;
>=20 > Not as JCB defined the phrase.  
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. <= br>  
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 withou= t=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.)  
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@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den. 

--
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.
----------MB_8CCA6F06B49204E_1A3C_1203B_webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com--