[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: [lojban] On a number of parts of threads and single threads disguised as...
In a message dated 7/27/2001 10:22:16 AM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes:
> Cowan has expressed his opinion that the appropriate
> way to fill in the gaps of the refgrammar is a chrestomathy of approved
>
A great idea! Alas, it requires 1) usage and 2) approval. The list is about
both of these -- not just either one -- and they feed off each other. xorxes
affects usage not merely because he writes stuff but also because, when
called on something that looks too weird, he is able (usually) to give a
reasoned defense of it. And, indeed,
he usually has come to his usage from such considerations, rather than by
accident or ignorance. Of course, perhaps he -- and certainly some others --
have also been known to continue in a usage -- and perhaps influence other
people's usage -- even after that usage has been disapproved, debated down
and -- we like to think for the few months the delusion lasts -- buried. If
we are going to ahve a chresthomathy, it should be maintained for many years
just on the internet, open to constant revision -- mainly expansion, as good
usage arises for new cases, but also correction, as old usage is shown flawed
and improved on.
Also, a pure chresthomathy will not do. Each example needs a note about what
problem it solves and what its general rule is. Otherwise, we will have the
kind of improper generalization that has plagued several topics in
Loglan/Lojban -- the conversion rules being the most famous, I suppose.
--part1_e.1038f78e.2892eca3_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 7/27/2001 10:22:16 AM Central Daylight Time,
<BR>lojbab@lojban.org writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Cowan has expressed his opinion that the appropriate
<BR>way to fill in the gaps of the refgrammar is a chrestomathy of approved
<BR>usages; we will no doubt be discussing this at LogFest</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>A great idea! Alas, it requires 1) usage and 2) approval. The list is about
<BR>both of these -- not just either one -- and they feed off each other. xorxes
<BR>affects usage not merely because he writes stuff but also because, when
<BR>called on something that looks too weird, he is able (usually) to give a
<BR>reasoned defense of it. And, indeed,
<BR> he usually has come to his usage from such considerations, rather than by
<BR>accident or ignorance. Of course, perhaps he -- and certainly some others --
<BR>have also been known to continue in a usage -- and perhaps influence other
<BR>people's usage -- even after that usage has been disapproved, debated down
<BR>and -- we like to think for the few months the delusion lasts -- buried. If
<BR>we are going to ahve a chresthomathy, it should be maintained for many years
<BR>just on the internet, open to constant revision -- mainly expansion, as good
<BR>usage arises for new cases, but also correction, as old usage is shown flawed
<BR>and improved on.
<BR>Also, a pure chresthomathy will not do. Each example needs a note about what
<BR>problem it solves and what its general rule is. Otherwise, we will have the
<BR>kind of improper generalization that has plagued several topics in
<BR>Loglan/Lojban -- the conversion rules being the most famous, I suppose.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_e.1038f78e.2892eca3_alt_boundary--
--- Begin Message ---
At 03:37 PM 07/27/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>The reason why Lojban List remains a single list (not counting Jbosnu),
>rather than lojban list + lojban-tech, is that Lojbab is opposed to
>splitting the list. His preferences appear to be (1) technical discussion
>doesn't happen, (2) it happens on Lojban list, (3) it happens on Lojban-tech
>list. (1) is unreasonable, so it is down to Lojbab that we have (2) rather
>than (3).
Lojbab is not opposed to technical discussion. I wish it were minimized,
because it detracts from people actually using the language (since my last
posting on this topic, Cowan has expressed his opinion that the appropriate
way to fill in the gaps of the refgrammar is a chrestomathy of approved
usages; we will no doubt be discussing this at LogFest). There is at times
a lot of energy thrown into technical discussion that goes nowhere, whereas
Jorge has certainly found that he has more effect on language usage by
using the language to the point that people follow his usage patterns, than
he will ever have in technical discussion.
I oppose a tech list primarily because I do not want the loss of critical
mass on the main list, especially if it means that all of the experienced
people working the technical list no longer pay attention to the regular
list. I would welcome it if there was a foolproof way of getting a mailing
list to sort itself into technical and beginner posts and other categories
so that people could filter what they don't want easily, but that is not
likely at least while we are using a commercial mail host. (If we had our
own mailing list host, we could in theory use software at the host to
standardize subject lines to include filterable codes.)
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
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End Message ---