RE: fundamentalism as fundamental (RE: Re: gadri paradigm:2 excellent proposals

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

cu'u la xod.

> I don't care to get into glass half empty/full arguments about
> how much "change" constitutes a radically new language, and how little is
> simply Book Lojban with a tiny bit of expected drift.

Most will, though. Try selling a substance interpretation of {lo} to Jay...

cu'u la .and.

> 2. The important thing at this stage is to agree that we are all engaged
> in the same enterprise and agree what that enterprise is. If we don't
> do this then we can't make progress. I see only two viable alternatives,
> which are entirely separate but not mutually exclusive.
> A. Ultra-fundamentalist. CLL is gospel except where it can conclusively
> be proved to be self-contradictory or to contravene inviolable principles.
> B. Lojban Mark 2. Avowedly revisionist. Changes happen through consensus
> (or majority view if no consensus possible), with participants more and
> less Conservative, but Fundamentalism not a virtue in itself.

Damn. A is what the charter says. If I'm forced to choose (and I know 
you're not forcing me, but I may be forced), I choose A. I want to 
allow a little bit of 'Microsoft' --- a few extra cmavo. In fact the 
charter does say the BPFK can do B if they wish --- if they get 
consensus; and it's up to the membership to accept it.

The sane and civil thing is, you propose "Excellent Solution", the 
vote is held, and if the vote goes n-1 fundie, that's it. If the vote 
goes n-3 fundie, we haggle a bit, and either take out controversies, 
or have the revisionists give up.

I think I am obligated to vote fundie overall. I think the BPFK is 
obligated to be fundie overall, and to keep in mind the hierarchy of 
sanctity. But will I block you from voting consistently revisionist? 
No. I can bemoan it and try to preempt it by watering down; but I 
will not block it. You have a view, I will not pretend you don't. I 
think your programme taken on en masse will damage Lojban, but that's 
what I think; the commision, and subsequent to that the LLG 
membership (who votes yay or nay on the dictionary) make the ultimate 
decision.

No split. Not yet. Let the BPFK talk. In the process, you will 
articulate, in one place and one time, coherent formalist proposals 
for sundry features. You'll come up with what xod termed FAQ 
statements. Many of these will be rejected or only partly accepted. 
The dictionary is done. *Then*: (a) the fundies have a baseline 
better than the doodoo we have now; (b) you have in your notes a 
clearer statement of your Lojban Mark II, which you can do what the 
hell you please with, but without holding out hope for LLG imprimatur 
for at least 5 years (and in all likelihood ever.)

If there will be a split, let there; of *course* there shall be 
Academic, Standard, and Organic dialects in the future. But not 
before the BPFK is done. Not before we've articulated a compromise 
standard. Because, by trying to fine-tune the standard in the 
direction of both Academic and Organic as much as possible (by 
overspecifying what we can get away with and underspecifying what we 
can't), we're trying to minimise the degree of divergence between the 
three later. That there will be divergence, I do not doubt. But to 
minimise it through a compromise standard is our mission.

And that's why the BPFK doesn't just say "the standard is what is in 
CLL, period." Which is what I'd initially said. Robin.CA (no 
revisionist he!) has said that a Lojban without a disambiguating 
dictionary is not a Lojban he wants to be part of.

So we have some goodwill from the community to revise a smidgeon. We 
don't to revise the lot. This is fuzzy, this is judgement call, this 
is messy. But it is the case.

--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****