[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

At 02:31 PM 10/3/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:

>>> Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> 10/03/02 12:10pm >>>
#>New cmavos, new usage of old ones, even new gismus
#>are just the sign that lojban is living like any other natlang.
#
#If it happens by prescription (and most of the jboske discussion is
#inherently prescriptive), then it is NOT like a natlang.
As I've said to you before, I can't make any sense of the descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy when it is applied to an invented language that is still in the process 
of coming into being.
Well, that is the question: is it "still coming into being"? If it is, then prescription is necessary. If the language has seen sufficient usage that we are ba'o "coming into being", then prescription is not necessary though it is arguably desirable by some.
While the Board is debating the question right now, my (abbreviated) opinion is that the grammar, as defined in CLL has long been considered complete. The lexicon is not considered complete, most especially because of a lack of a good cmavo list with understandable definitions (which does not mean "full" definitions, but does mean more than exists today), and a lack of a lujvo list, which I believe should include some minimum number of dikyjvo/jvajvo and some number of words that are not, to show that both are permitted, and that we can and have settled on place structures for them. The number of such lujvo needed are small - Nick, I believe has suggested 500.
As such, I have no problem with jboske debates on the meaning of the cmavo. At the point where we publish a cmavo list, whatever we say should constrain (but not necessarily eliminate) the jboske debate. I expect that where there is considerable difference over how a cmavo should be used, we can come up with a wording that describes the cmavo meaning but which gives some room for the variations in usage, or if necessary, put forth a prescribed meaning but acknowledge variation in usage. 


#> > So thankfully the massive amount of fiddling which you are hilariously
#> > referring to as "jboske" is more or less inconsequential.
#>
#>You seem to regret the existence of different kind of "lojbanists". But
#>every one is free to have his own objectives when considering lojban.
#
#Lojban tolerates the existence of many kinds of Lojbanist, but the
#existence of multiple language prescriptions is not so easily
#tolerated.  The fear is that jboske will inherently lead to multiple and
#contradictory prescriptions.  It is only by managing to label the jboske
#discussions "inconsequential" that many people will consider Lojban as
#being "done" and therefore worth spending the time to learn.

This is an unhealthy state of affairs.


Maybe so, but it is indeed the state of affairs.


To have a pluralism of ideologies in the community is not a bad thing,


Agreed.


but the situation you describe is
a tiresomely perennial source of conflict and occasional acrimony.
Yes. Therefore we should recognize it and deal with it in a way which acknowledges the validity of the various concerns and yet permits the different "ideologies" to exercise the language as they choose. I understand that Esperanto has multiple ideologies on certain aspects of the language, but that while they are apparently significant for the people who argue them enough that they bother to do so, the different ideologies are largely "inconsequential" to the learner.
Nick has suggested to me that there will likely come to exist multiple dialects of Lojban, with a colloquial one and an academic one the obvious ones that are forming. The (at least) two dialects as they are developing share the same grammar, and the same lexicon (with some experimental cmavo), and the meanings of the words are compatible enough that communication between speakers of the two dialects occurs (and indeed many speakers use different dialects at different times); we can live with this. 


So the current situation is that those with the fear of jboske have to
continue to feel threatened by it, while the practitioners of jboske
have to put up with regular irruptions from people inveighing against
it. Is there really no way we can manage ourselves better than this?
Probably not on a single list, with the current volume of postings. It is the fact that jboske discussions become so voluminous, so arcane to the non-initiated, and so often inconclusive (or at least I haven't seen any "records" out of pc in recent months, so I have to assume it), that there are a lot of rather major Lojbanists who simply do not read the jboske stuff and therefore never know whether a conclusion has been reached; the learner Lojbanists simply are overwhelmed and perhaps scared off.
The beginners list was formed for the beginners, but it only rarely gets postings. The jboske list also rarely gets postings. To "manage ourselves" requires that people discussing a topic realize that it is getting too arcane for those not reading closely, and move it to the jboske list, or to repetitive in the way that beginners need repetition, in which case it might better go on the beginners list (but I can't recall such a thread in a long while).
In the absence of the Elephant, I think that the jboske debates are best conducted by creating a pseudo-elephant using the wiki. Perhaps Jay could create a template based on the Elephant example in the wiki, and an Elephant section of the wiki, and people wanting to debate jboske issues could start to fill in the template for each issue. When we have the Elephant done, such information can probably be transferred into the software without much work.
But what is really needed for the rest of us, is what pc was originally doing with his "records" - creating a short summary of what was debated and the conclusions that were reached, perhaps with an example. (pc's records at one point started to become contentious enough that they restarted the debate, which is I think when he stopped writing them, so records will only work for issues on which consensus has been achieved, or where there are clear options that can be described with the annotation of "agree to disagree". 

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