Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:47:36 -0800
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
Message-ID: <20121118004735.GE28469@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-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>
 <50A7A49C.4010403@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50A7A49C.4010403@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] LLG Annual Meeting - Quorum Call
Precedence: list
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 02:52:12PM +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the explanation.  Your repsonse implies that there's an
actual contender out there; is that true?  It's news to me if so.
Is there another loglang with, say, 20 active community members?  If
not, I find all your points fairly irrelevant, but I can understand
why you wouldn't.

-Robin

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