From lojban+bncCJbznvHdFRCiyJfpBBoEtbotTQ@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 07:48:07 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pas4C-00022C-G0; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:48:06 -0800 Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10sf6026490fxm.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:49 -0800 (PST) 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:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :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; bh=3rZePJp0spgaCCKyshMye+w3H6FFSkOY8+58nlQ3sbc=; b=iCIaiqxeyek8FmVVTZgRlTCGp1YsqLdHCqcW75I7xMsEVCWtFcI7ImvLDems1IRGvC nZ6zOTDFobm7I7TwhuaCXeH2Sca+MHPJqH9oMUunFmhWH8KTxntNMWvQw4Myg5VP3b/1 +C8SxeRWLQm6KuYrtXLo1YSWVASfxrcUCzC8Q= 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-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; b=0uEiX8tiqrtrz6PtprUjzDI9TPeCFAj8h7QdZKMIm1WyPXPkRMVVZilYwbLJZF5wZ7 WmIywZRBGuupUjz2MT/gnWqvvbezDZExbOlZqhdA1wxIfRhRAgjAeUMVuOWZMwP2Ba9d hfob968OGlKIHbiqzTIyyB7tXYwopIIHF2FQo= Received: by 10.223.111.19 with SMTP id q19mr1607534fap.2.1294328866338; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:46 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.49.147 with SMTP id v19ls6928270bkf.1.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.134.24 with SMTP id h24mr1660687bkt.7.1294328865036; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.134.24 with SMTP id h24mr1660686bkt.7.1294328865010; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com (mail-fx0-f45.google.com [209.85.161.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id f12si4287553bkf.7.2011.01.06.07.47.43; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:44 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.45; Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so16557590fxm.32 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.83.133 with SMTP id f5mr71144fal.101.1294328863685; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.100.3 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:47:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D25D593.9060205@lojban.org> References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <201101051658.16043.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4D25D593.9060205@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:47:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! From: MorphemeAddict To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3054a475247f4904992f6c04 --20cf3054a475247f4904992f6c04 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No one has mentioned yet that computers will be among the speakers of Lojban. I expect they will have none of the problems discussed in this thread. And they will contribute a stabilizing effect to both grammar and vocabulary. stevo On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote= : > Ivo Doko wrote: > >> I'm not talking about how lojban native speakers will come up with new >> words for things they don't have a word for. What I'm talking about is t= hat >> speaker(s) of lojban will be introduced to a new invention/concept/thing >> which will have been named by people who don't speak lojban (but, for >> example, English) and lojban speakers will like the name those people ha= ve >> given it and will thus simply incorporate that word in their vocabularie= s >> and, thus, in lojban. It's just like French "=C3=A9cran" and English "so= ftware" >> got incorporated into Serbo-Croatian as "ekran" and "softver". >> > > They would not be incorporated into lojban that way. And the forms in > which they were incorporated would be valid Lojban words, and would remai= n > valid Lojban words even if better words were made to replace them. > > > > Sure, purists didn't like that > >> and invented replacement words, namely "zaslon" and "omek=C5=A1je", >> respectively, but those words are simply not used and have failed to rep= lace >> "ekran" and "softver" and these two have become a part of Serbo-Croatian >> vocabulary. >> > > If they are valid S-C words, that is no problem. There wold not be valid > Lojban words, and probably would therefore NOT become part of the > vocabulary. > > > >Same thing would happen with lojban > > There is no evidence of this. > > > - purists > >> would invent lujvo (or brivla) to replace the direct loanwords in order = to >> leave the language's unambiguity intact, >> > > Loanwords, in proper morphological form, leave the morphological > unambiguity intact, and it is not difficult to create such words. > > > >but people who don't care > >> about whether the language is completely unambiguous or not >> > > Probably won't learn the language in the first place. > > > >(who would, > >> mind you, make up a great majority of lojban speakers if it did become >> world's official common language) >> > > No language will "become world's official common language". That is > political impossibility. Any international language will only be used by > people who are motivated to use the language, and generally those who are= so > motivated, want to use the language correctly. > > > > would not cease to use the loanwords > >> in place of the new "proper" words and lojban would get screwed up prett= y >> quick. >> > > Lojban is not screwed up by well-formed loan words. It may be > aesthetically less pleasing, but it loses no functionality. > > > Of course, you could say that lojban is what a special committee of puris= ts >> says it is and that people who don't use only the words which have been >> approved by the committee don't speak lojban, but no one would agree to = make >> such a fascistic language the world's official common language >> > > NO one will agree to make any language "the world's official common > language", but if they did, there undoubtedly would indeed be some sort o= f > standards committee that would "fascistically" define the international > language, and denigrate anything else. That is the way international > standardization works. > > > > and even if they did no one would give a crap what the > >> committee says and lojban would still be what is spoken and not what is >> approved. >> > > In which case, the question of "completeness" is irrelevant. If people ar= e > happy speaking the language or some approximation thereof, then the > "fascistic" standards of completeness and unambiguity will be unimportant= to > them, just as the rules of every other language are. > > But in fact, the evidence of the existing speaker base is that people DO > "give a crap" what the committee says in the case of Lojban, enough so, t= hat > "xorlo" was "forceably" approved by the committee well ahead of the stand= ard > procedure because the community wanted it to be officially endorsed. > > lojbab > > > -- > 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=3Den. > > --=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. --20cf3054a475247f4904992f6c04 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No one has mentioned yet that computers will be among the speakers of = Lojban. I expect they will have none of the problems discussed in this thre= ad. And they will contribute a stabilizing effect to both grammar and vocab= ulary.
stevo
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Robert LeChevali= er <lojbab@lojban= .org> wrote:
Ivo Doko wrote:
I'm not talking about how lo= jban native speakers will come up with new words for things they don't = have a word for. What I'm talking about is that speaker(s) of lojban wi= ll be introduced to a new invention/concept/thing which will have been name= d by people who don't speak lojban (but, for example, English) and lojb= an speakers will like the name those people have given it and will thus sim= ply incorporate that word in their vocabularies and, thus, in lojban. It= 9;s just like French "=C3=A9cran" and English "software"= ; got incorporated into Serbo-Croatian as "ekran" and "softv= er".

They would not be incorporated into lojban that way.= =C2=A0And the forms in which they were incorporated would be valid Lojban = words, and would remain valid Lojban words even if better words were made t= o replace them.=20


> Sure, purists didn't like that
and invented replacement words, = namely "zaslon" and "omek=C5=A1je", respectively, but t= hose words are simply not used and have failed to replace "ekran"= and "softver" and these two have become a part of Serbo-Croatian= vocabulary.

If they are valid S-C words, that is no problem. =C2= =A0There wold not be valid Lojban words, and probably would therefore NOT b= ecome part of the vocabulary.=20


>Same thing would happen with lojban

There is no evidence of this.=20


- purists
would invent lujvo (or brivla) t= o replace the direct loanwords in order to leave the language's unambig= uity intact,

Loanwords, in proper morphological form, leave the m= orphological unambiguity intact, and it is not difficult to create such wor= ds.=20


>but people who don't care
about whether the language is co= mpletely unambiguous or not

Probably won't le= arn the language in the first place.=20


>(who would,
mind you, make up a great majori= ty of lojban speakers if it did become world's official common language= )

No language will "become world's official c= ommon language". =C2=A0That is political impossibility. =C2=A0Any inte= rnational language will only be used by people who are motivated to use the= language, and generally those who are so motivated, want to use the langua= ge correctly.=20


> would not cease to use the loanwords
in place of the new "proper= " words and lojban would get screwed up pretty quick.

Lojban is not screwed up by well-formed loan words. =C2=A0It may = be aesthetically less pleasing, but it loses no functionality.=20


Of course, you could say that lo= jban is what a special committee of purists says it is and that people who = don't use only the words which have been approved by the committee don&= #39;t speak lojban, but no one would agree to make such a fascistic languag= e the world's official common language

NO one will agree to make any language "the wor= ld's official common
language", but if they did, there undoubte= dly would indeed be some sort of standards committee that would "fasci= stically" define the international language, and denigrate anything el= se. =C2=A0That is the way international standardization works.=20


> and even if they did no one would give a cra= p what the
committee says and lojban would = still be what is spoken and not what is approved.

In which case, the question of "completeness" is irrelevant. If p= eople are happy speaking the language or some approximation thereof, then t= he "fascistic" standards of completeness and unambiguity will be = unimportant to them, just as the rules of every other language are.

But in fact, the evidence of the existing speaker base is that people D= O "give a crap" what the committee says in the case of Lojban, en= ough so, that "xorlo" was "forceably" approved by the c= ommittee well ahead of the standard procedure because the community wanted = it to be officially endorsed.

lojbab=20


--
You received this message because you are = subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to thi= s 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.


--
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.
--20cf3054a475247f4904992f6c04--