From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDrv4bmBBoElXA15w@googlegroups.com Fri Oct 22 07:30:22 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P9IdO-0008Ux-Qd; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:30:22 -0700 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42sf1040271yxe.16 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:30:09 -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:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fmBDZZI+/x4tYreeG+ySt4MyYm4o57pQjVteVp6zbi4=; b=TqdsEfcQTFO0FSnHcQCE6A69Ceqi102nbj8URWIuDenAhxbmbTCOpPDgqp/pqVNp+U f1g/bTEJZvTMi7RdKBmIPkUvxwDg0XoyrCNIzHqSisxxyZtJPUeV5EV4xUYs265E+fET znagR/rWT0z0rYYP4ILVPjWAQt7mzbjKXe+Xc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PwFMFZaCDQYoxHCsBgRuqR1jW9obZYiXpC/mVr/ZwP5p2dh2cONtD/TLzh8Vp/zvGO suGv0Ss+Fa+ZhTLB9ujW6QdsAYueBdrHoFtYHW0Ebh5Ik8koRIvn+zDYBDcabVREI3Rf W4Rvvd4CCeeO8ybXPznKCsWxXG4C15Pdo7fcQ= Received: by 10.151.62.2 with SMTP id p2mr488607ybk.69.1287757803065; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.1.11 with SMTP id 11ls2006380yba.0.p; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.49.6 with SMTP id b6mr1250148ybk.43.1287757801668; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.49.6 with SMTP id b6mr1250139ybk.43.1287757800786; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.121]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id l66si1142236yhd.4.2010.10.22.07.29.59; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.121; Received: (qmail 33468 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Oct 2010 14:29:59 -0000 Message-ID: <321022.33461.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: TBYl5rYVM1lIUN7Kll6xRDQMxggeJm5bXKVGI99qKUOjqfT unPThWuXWdkLw0JQdY6vca9oBKogXOvduyNq8NdRusR8Qmsd20Os9vMXFpD1 sELr9SgyZAXIVIUVjz906_HyLdYVARDdJWGmGhZwy4.PTrS43sK5isvbEW9n LUzNJ.8O4cFlwzI3nZ8v8waZfFsQckZnx1Gnpr_2cuhq.55.Wo_dfRgl8aMs CFXxUTVb1tORJenKOIOhJTJvlJtPF53sGVdAuGGMLtwWXvHucqPHHyuHMGpB UlJMsyRuY4IeQCtMOk29P23x.OH8O1pWYzxq2S2HKPjSiUS7W2czwI2ID07Z Oh7em539gi7MxjfcejW2o8IizkNxoIHK8zAPjezqmMHhDLg-- Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:29:58 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: <4CC19CEA.4000300@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] mistakes To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <4CC19CEA.4000300@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tales about Loglan are basically true; JCB was the final authority on every= thing=20 and deviations were "corrected" onsite (The Loglanist). There was eventual= ly=20 enough internet that most of this could be done fairly rapidly, but it stil= l=20 waited on JCB's pleasure. As for praising execrable Lojban, I think the principle was simply "Somethi= ng is=20 better than nothing." And, of course, the warm emotions one got from corre= cting=20 ad infinitum each piddling error. There remains, however, the overarching = fact=20 that Lojban is meant to be uniquely parsable and that many (most?) deviatio= ns --=20 except vocabulary selection, perhaps -- make the result unparsable or wrong= ly=20 parsed for the intended meaning. We override that by context and the other= =20 devices of natural languages, but the sentences as they stand are not good= =20 Lojban in a strict sense. But they may still be good Lojbanic conversation= s. ----- Original Message ---- From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 9:17:14 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] mistakes Stela Selckiku, On 22/10/2010 14:26: > 2010/10/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas: >> >> But of course it's allowed to make mistakes in Lojban! How could it >> not be? The only people who make no mistakes are those that don't ever >> use the language. > > Well that was the rule, for years! No one was allowed to speak > Lojban. Not without weathering severe criticism, anyway! I've been around since 1990 or 1991. For all the time that I've been around= ,=20 speakers and writers of Lojban have been feted and lauded. Severe criticism= was=20 reserved only for those who either knowingly departed from the baseline or= =20 adhered to the baseline but violated usage conventions (by writing in a sui= =20 generis style). It's true that mistakes were invariably corrected, but=20 scrupulous and finicky correction of mistakes is not severe criticism. =20 > I hear it was even worse before I was involved, like the Loglan days. > I read something the other day about how everyone sent their attempts > at Loglan to JCB, and he just didn't send them on to anyone else > because he didn't think they were good enough, they were all just > hidden away, and like one person wrote a text and published it anyway > but JCB was furious! Is that really what it was like, oldbies? I've never been involved with Loglan, but I can certainly sympathisize with= the=20 desire to suppress, or at least conceal, most usage. Maybe things have impr= oved,=20 but at least for the duration of the 90s, Lojban usage was absolutely execr= able,=20 comparable perhaps to the average Anglo schoolchild's command of French (or= =20 whatever foreign language they learn at school). I am here measuring=20 execrability by the distance and discrepancy between the meaning of what is= said=20 and the meaning that the speaker intends to communicate. I guess xorlo has = gone=20 a long way to fixing a lot of this. But at any rate, if almost your entire= =20 corpus of usage consists of the usage of incompetent foreign-like speakers,= I=20 would have thought it should be deprecated rather than worshipped, though= =20 everybody else in my day seemed to take the opposite view. --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. =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.