Re: lojban dialectology

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la lojbab cusku di'e

>  My contention is that such change will be
> slower than any conscious reform efforts like we see from And and Jorge.

I disagree that I am taking any part in a reform effort. My grammar
proposals are natural extensions to the existing language and I do not
consider them any kind of reform. I don't see And as a reformist either.
His texts are usually grammatical, and only very rarely consciously
ungrammatical (the only example I can think of is when he uses {li}
with the grammar of LE). He just pushes the current grammar to its
limits with unconventional usages. Is that what you mean by reform?

We have to admit that no matter when the grammar is published it will
not and cannot be a complete description of the language. Take for
example the recent discussion about {le re nanmu cu prami le ri speni}.
I don't think that the refgrammar's description of {ri} is explicit
enough to tell whether that means that each man loves his own spouse
or both their spouses. Suppose that the grammar is published and the
next day this question or one like it comes up. Well, probably the
second edition of the refgrammar should address it, but that doesn't
mean that the language has changed, it just means that its description
was not complete in the first edition.

Most of the discussion in the list is like that. That will not change
just because a book is printed, but that doesn't mean that the
language is changing, it just means that we haven't yet discovered
all of it. Publishing the refgrammar cannot mean that there is nothing
more to discover in the language. I see myself as an explorer, not a
reformer of the language.

Jorge