Message-ID: <50A7A49C.4010403@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:52:12 +0000
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: llg-members@lojban.org
References: <5097960D.8000704@lojban.org>
 <20121105114949.GN407@mercury.ccil.org>
 <CALBXrCt2HnnMZrw6y9daqK5cbHTXtMe9o=UxEBm=Orub5Kub-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121105154210.GD30442@mercury.ccil.org>
 <CACf3dPn5U_Qesh6r7ARZKmznh6XUkyz_tNeTvxTqmwHARfc7GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121116214127.GK25271@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <20121116214127.GK25271@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] LLG Annual Meeting - Quorum Call
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

Robin Lee Powell, On 16/11/2012 21:41:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:03:21PM +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>> I think I should make explicit that I remain interested in making a
>> "logical language" available to the world, that I am convinced Lojban (in
>> any form recognizable as Lojban) is not a viable candidate for being that
>> logical language (and ironically I now have a similar vision of Lojban to
>> Lojbab's),
>
> I'd be interested in a brief summary of both why you think it's not
> viable, and in what way you think that view agrees with Bob's view?

Bob has always been committed to achieving a stable completed implementation of Loglan as soon as possible, so that a speech community may develop, with Lojban being understood to be defined by its current design rather than by a set of design goals. Lojban is not suitable as a plausible candidate for an auxiliary language because it is needlessly and obviously overcomplicated (e.g. in the morphology and the syntax). It's not suitable as a logical language because logical explicitness is achieved only at the cost of excessive longwindedness and excessive demands on working memory (in the variable-naming system), and because logical form is separate from syntax and derived from syntax by ad hoc interpretation rules in which there are many gaps. To achieve a viable auxloglang, it is necessary to start again from scratch (but using lessons learnt from Lojban), as with Xorban for example. Recognition of that then quells any imperative for radical reform of Lojban, allowing it to
 continue as it is, without the tug-of-war over project goals that once beset it. The reason for anyone joining the Lojban community now would be a liking for the language and/or the community, while anyone seeking an auxloglang would be better served by Xorban or by a not-yet-created one. Since smallscale moderate reforms to Lojban would not yield a viable auxloglang, the only possible compromise between those who want Lojban to remain largely as it is and those who seek a viable auxloglang is to accept that they must go forward as two separate projects. Whether the LLG defines its role as supporting both projects or Lojban only is a matter for the LLG to decide.

--And.

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members