From lojban+bncCOWOg99KEJDKg94EGgRP-Nea@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 13:53:01 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f198.google.com ([209.85.217.198]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0hfj-0003gl-Qv; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:53:00 -0700 Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22sf946351gxk.4 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:49 -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:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=i2Hi6EJ373ZigYzaSZstJ5LyilRzaYnmVHN/ClL70G0=; b=YJS9Yt0ogIRM1jRq1n+g/zYdBSrwoqlTdnUxPUHR0P0NQyWJrqDjQ4lgJQnoufg8Mk TSNOgCzL8jY5IrOdWISNrfDFUBLIHKpBterr7ZzPiovtnqWcq4bzD+TzbhDfmUQyskRW 0NwybCUxLaACAxQyrqG23VnZagDhAp612gNYc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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; b=Btac7T3gTfnIC7UHcWcQ9Ehf4O1EPUA+VS788XUeKTd+WoZGfFGuhvvu0qbsOUkytg p9Q4nqvUq0L4y/hawhcpu9VTrgb4Vul47bc8cwMr0d2NtnFI/JHUfm3AyBuVlqPtPKs/ hCSiT7D0QAZZ32AMIcq06FmbYIHNCE+RHz4ts= Received: by 10.91.91.11 with SMTP id t11mr337052agl.28.1270932753030; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.32.206 with SMTP id e14ls770181bkd.2.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.48.214 with SMTP id s22mr122344bkf.26.1270932750379; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.48.214 with SMTP id s22mr122343bkf.26.1270932750267; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f218.google.com (mail-bw0-f218.google.com [209.85.218.218]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si216132bwz.10.2010.04.10.13.52.29; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of yoav.nir@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.218; Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so1165205bwz.4 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.3.71 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8CCA6F068EC8210-1A3C-934F@webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com> 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> <8CCA6F068EC8210-1A3C-934F@webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:52:28 +0300 Received: by 10.204.162.199 with SMTP id w7mr1974556bkx.211.1270932748956; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" From: Yoav Nir To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of yoav.nir@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=yoav.nir@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: yoav.nir@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/76eb0d9b9dd7e731 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555610e08f4260483e817a9 --00032555610e08f4260483e817a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Well, linguists consider linguistics to be a science, not a branch of engineering, and science is always descriptive, not prescriptive. So, yes, they consider all conlangs as games, as opposed to languages people actually speak, which are "natural" phenomena worthy of study. As And said, a language is real to them only if it has native speakers, and all constructed languages, including even Esperanto, are at best second languages. (now somebody's going to link to some parents raising their kids in esperanto, or to that guy who tried to teach his kid Klingon as a first language, but these are very small exceptions, and those kids grow up to speak the environment's language, not the constructed language they heard at home) On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Seth wrote: > > 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 > linguistics professors i asked for advice. pretty much every linguist i have > encountered 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 > 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 > > others 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 something like Lojban, where it is important, indeed vital, > 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 > good 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 > whose use the world could benefit. You'd want the software to be used, but > others 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 >> > language is a set of rules (definitional rules, not rules regulating >> > behaviour) does not entail that nobody uses the rules or that nobody >> > wants to use them. > > > I disagree with the definition. > > Nevertheless, such a definition does not entail the conclusions you drew > from it. > > > > The Lojban language itself is a failure as a logical language, > > > Not as JCB defined the phrase. > That's true (I believe), but it is a failure as a logical language under > the prevailing understanding of the phrase (encoding logical structure > unambiguously in a speakable way), and it's that prevailing understanding > that attracts many to the Logban project in the first place. > > > And I was dealing with academic linguists who associated artificial > > language solely with that sort of thing, or with Esperanto evangelism. I > > fought hard, for several years, to neutralize that negativism, and I > think > I succeeded - Lojban has managed a couple of academic citations, > and I > started 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 > credible. (Getting called Dr LeChevalier was a > 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 the > involvement of academic linguistics in assessing the outcomes of the > experiment. So I understand why you felt you had to recruit the interest of > linguists. 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 > dealt with (excepting you, since > you just self-identified as one in > another post), Lojban is not YET a > success as a language period, and > 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 > > ways that they might consider Lojban linguistically interesting without > > being a proper "language". But it always requires demonstrable and > > 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 > consider whether to give more weight to my views... (I can think of decent > reasons 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 > suspect 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 > lacking). 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 > same would go for any invented language, and Lojban would be of no more > interest than Klingon or Toki Pona or Esperanto. I think also that the > responses you'd have got from linguists would have been a function of the > way you made the case for Lojban being of interest; you've never cared about > the logical language aspects or shared my vision of the value and scholarly > interest of such a thing. > > --And. > > -- 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/lojban?hl=en. > > -- > 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/lojban?hl=en. > -- 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/lojban?hl=en. --00032555610e08f4260483e817a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, linguists consider linguistics to be a science, not = a branch of engineering, and science is always descriptive, not prescriptiv= e.

So, yes, they consider all conlangs as games, as oppo= sed to languages people actually speak, which are "natural" pheno= mena worthy of study.

As And said, a language is real to them only if it has = native speakers, and all constructed languages, including even Esperanto, a= re at best second languages.

(now somebody's g= oing to link to some parents raising their kids in esperanto, or to that gu= y who tried to teach his kid Klingon as a first language, but these are ver= y small exceptions, and those kids grow up to speak the environment's l= anguage, not the constructed language they heard at home)

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Seth <thirderivative@ao= l.com> wrote:

=A0I just= finished my senior thesis for my bachelor in linguistics. I did it on conl= angery and lojban, with much opposition from my class and other linguistics= professors i asked for advice. pretty much every linguist i have encounter= ed 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 the= m no matter what we do.


-----= Original Message-----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@goo= glegroups.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:=A0
> 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 reco= gnize 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.=A0
=A0
I think the Logban project's goal is a work of science rather than art.= A good analogy would maybe be a group whose aim is to produce an awesome p= iece of open-sourced software, from whose design we could learn much and fr= om whose use the world could benefit. You'd want the software to be use= d, but others would be free to modify the code for their own ends, and you = wouldn't baseline inadequate code just in order to gain users.=A0
=A0
>> 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.=A0
>=20 > I disagree with the definition.=A0
=A0
Nevertheless, such a definition does not entail the conclusions you drew fr= om it.=A0
=A0
> > The Lojban language itself is a failure as a logical language,= =A0
>=20 > Not as JCB defined the phrase. =A0
That's true (I believe), but it is a failure as a logical language unde= r the prevailing understanding of the phrase (encoding logical structure un= ambiguously in a speakable way), and it's that prevailing understanding= that attracts many to the Logban project in the first place.=A0
=A0
> 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.)=A0
=A0
The massive increase in public visibility of invented languages in the last= twenty years has noticeably increased tolerance of their existence.=A0
=A0
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.)=A0
=A0
> 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.=A0 >=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 demonstra= ble and=20 > probably fluent usage for communication.=A0
=A0
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= consider whether to give more weight to my views... (I can think of decent= reasons not to, mind, such as my eccentricity and my opinion that Lojban i= sn't ripe for interesting academic research.) =A0
I of course wasn't privy to your conversations with linguists, but I su= spect part of linguists' response might have been a polite brush-off, a= nd part might have been based on taking at face value Lojbanists' claim= s about the language, without checking the veracity of those claims (and fi= nding it lacking). It's true that for many linguists a language would b= ecome worthy of study only when it demonstrably being used as languages are= used; but the same would go for any invented language, and Lojban would be= of no more interest than Klingon or Toki Pona or Esperanto. I think also t= hat the responses you'd have got from linguists would have been a funct= ion of the way you made the case for Lojban being of interest; you've n= ever cared about the logical language aspects or shared my vision of the va= lue and scholarly interest of such a thing.=A0
=A0
--And.=A0
=A0
--=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.=A0
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.=A0
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups= .com.=A0
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.=A0
=20

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/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.
--00032555610e08f4260483e817a9--