RE: [jboske] Lojbab on tu'o (was: RE: RE: Nick on propositionalism &c

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 03:09 PM 1/11/03 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:
> > Frankly I don't give a shit what has been discussed on jboske by 3% of the
> > Lojban community, while the rest were doing their best to tune out.
>
> The people who refuse to think about issues hardly have the same
> argumentation weight as those who do.

Since they aren't interested in argumentation or its fruits, why would they 
care?

And it isn't that they refuse to think about issues, but rather that they 
only want to think about issues in the context wherein they come up in 
actual usage; they aren't interested in the theory of the language, and 
they don't much care to define words in terms of their theoretical usages, 
but rather in terms of how Lojbanists actually try to use them. Look at 
how much debate there was over opening and closing files, which Robin 
Powell got into, even though he disdains formal discussion as much as I do.

> It behooves all involved to either
> establish their own opinions on basis of independent judgement, or to
> respect and follow the thoughts of those who have applied more effort. But
> to refuse to do the former, and disdain the latter, is indefensible.

It is not a matter of effort, but a matter of assumptions. Immense effort 
based on faulty assumptions is to others wasted effort. Some people find 
jimc's guaspi interesting; I recognize that he put much thought into it, 
but his assumptions are unlike Lojban's so I find it totally 
uninteresting. I fear that the direction that And wants to take the 
language is like jimc's, taking some aspects of the language as so 
important that he departs from the core of the language.

> > I think the answer is already determined, and the word will split in
> > two. But I am not interested in finding answers until the byfy is
> > constituted. I already know that one person is somewhat resentful that
> > byfy issues are being debated on jboske while the others await a forum that
> > is worth participating in. jboske isn't, for them.
>
> I find this unfair. jboske is where one particular subset or faction is
> getting its story straight, among themselves, prior to the BF. Would you
> rather it work out its internal affairs during BF time, distracting the
> other BF participants, and delaying the proceedings?

I don't know what I'd rather they do, except that when I went looking for 
history of tu'o, I found this whole mess of usage quantifying du'u and ka, 
which was instigated by jboske discussion on the basis of abstract 
analysis, and which now may be rejected by some or all of the same people 
and a few different people on the basis of a different abstract 
analysis. The net result is that it obscures the sort of usage I am 
interested in for "usage deciding"; it precisely shows the problem of 
prescriptive modification of the language as erroneous prescriptions spread 
NOT because they make sense, but because "people who think more about these 
issues" said it should be so.

Nick was wise in insisting that broad usage patterns be the sort of usage 
that decides and not individual usages. But even broad usage patterns can 
be skewed by factions "getting their act together in advance".

Nick has said that he is moving ahead to get the byfy going, and that is 
the only solution. Having opened the door to possible baseline changes, we 
have to get to work make what changes we will make, and close the door, or 
it will continue out of control.

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org