RE: [lojban] Re: logical language and usage deciding

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>To be explicit on the mailing list about things I've said on the Wiki:
>there are things being proposed in Lojban which I intensely dislike. I
>don't mean rafsi or attitudinals; I may think some aspects of them
ill-thought
>out, but I am not, and cannot, suggest they be uprooted from the language;
>they are part of it, and I am committed to the stability of the language
>(the recent exceptions to that commitment, I would like to think, prove
>the rule.) I mean rather things mooted for introduction. I am against
>type 4 fu'ivla; I am against experimental gismu. I have my reasons; I
>won't bore you with them again --- see "fundamentalism" on the Wiki.

Typo 4 fu'ivla are one of the few areas in which Nick and I agree
completely. I'm strongly tavlakai, he is probably the biggest fundamentalist
on the list; there is bipartisan support for disuse of type 4 fu'ivla. As
for experimental gismu, have you seen my suggestion
(http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Experimental%20gismu%20proposal) of
using them all in the same way as the broda-series?

>If, on the other hand, it does matter, and there is a real potential
>for misunderstanding, then the naturalist will have to
>listen to the hardliner, because the hardliner has some pertinent
>arguments, given the origins of the language. She doesn't have to obey
>him, but she does have to listen. On
>the other hand, the hardliner has to demonstrate feasibility by attempting
>to use what she preaches: she has to adopt the naturalist's methodology.
>If And won't do it, and if I think what And says on a particular issue is
>right, then I have no problem doing it for him. (As soon as I'm able to
>find out what he may or may not have said. :-)

But the javnakai must still listen to the tavlakai, also. We all wont a
logical language, but whereas you emphasize the seltau, we emphasize the
tertau. What we need is to all listen to those in the middle.

>A responsible Lojbanist is a Lojbanist who cares for the stability of the
>language. Both naturalists and hardliners have demonstrated this
>responsibility. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain cohesion in this
>language, as it is for all conlangs. But I think we're still committed to
>trying.

No, a responsible Lojbanist is a Lojbanist who cares for the stabitlity of
the language community. Even lojbab wants the language to evolve, unless I'm
misunderstanding him. And your desire for a speakable predicate logic - if
the logic doesn't evolve out, which I don't forsee it doing, that just
proves that it is possible and easy.

--la kreig.daniyl.

'segu le bavli temci gi mi'o renvi lo purci
.i ga le fonxa janbe gi du mi'
-la djimis.BYFet

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74