[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Loglan
At 12:06 PM 12/1/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 10:10 PM, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> Steven, I don't get what you want the baseline statement to day.
>
> That Loglan is ancestral to Lojban? Sure, but that's history, it has
> nothing to do with the baseline.
Yes it does. If things go well, the lojban baseline will also be the
Loglan baseline.
From what I have gathered based on McIvor's comments to me, JCB would
oppose any sort of baseline. JCB would have agreed with And that the
language should just keep changing as people come up with new ideas. It
was the community that wanted a version of the language that (would be
official and) would stop changing. Hence the baseline policy that I came
up with in response to the couple dozen Loglanists who wrote to me write
after I started trying to get the Loglan community back together (which led
to Lojban).
> That Lojban is Loglan? I've never accepted that either, but that is
> current LLFG policy. I considered raising a motion against it, but
> decided it honestly wasn't worth the effort.
Possibility 1: lojban is Loglan. If so, then the baseline is the
baseline for both languages.
If Lojban is Loglan, then JCB's stuff is irrelevant.
Possibility 2: lojban is not Loglan. If so, then the baseline could
serve to attract Loglanders to lojban if they are dealt with in a
respectful manner. You are underestimating the importance of emotion in
human decision-making.
I agree. The question that is open, is how many people are in the TLI
community who would be responsive to any amount of respect. I agree with
you that there are a lot more than 5, probably a few hundred, but all of
them are inactive and it is unclear whether language modifications are the
sort of "respect" that would attract them. The "respect" of according
special respect to McIvor and accepting that the TLI community has learned
something about Loglan/Lojban in the last 50 years that is worthy of
consideration when we make decisions about Lojban's final form might cater
to the emotions, and also might lead to better decisions - there was never
a wise man who did not recognize the possibility of learning from history.
> That there shall be a Lojban to Loglan toggle cmavo? The BPFK will
> consider such a motion, and you already know there is at least one vote
> against.
The toggle cmavo will seem like a good idea to all those who read the
1960s Scientific American article. ("Oh, I see, the community had a
squabble and is now united. The language was flawed, but has been
revised and is now believed to be stable. Good...") I realize it
doesn't make much sense to waste a cmavo on a toggle from the pragmatic
position that lojban is flourishing and Loglan is dying. But sometimes,
perception is reality. Most artificial languages die due to schisms of
one sort or another. It would be prudent to resolve this schism, as
this will reassure artificial language enthusiasts that lojban is not
going to mutate.
I agree that Loglan/Lojban has the unique opportunity among artificial
language communities to resolve and close up a schism in a manner that
leaves the community healthy, and that being able to brag about this would
be a public relations advantage.
An alternative to the toggle cmavo would be some means
of formally describing the differences between the two languages and
putting a mapping of the predicates to each other on the web site. I'm
not suggesting this should be a high priority at the moment. Also, most
of this work should be done by former Loglanders, I would think. Simply
committing to do this at some point in the future and having the
approval of the Loglanders to do so would be reassuring to newbies who
fear the worst: memorizing a list of words only to have their hard work
discarded for some stupid political reason. I was fairly pissed off
about this when it happened to me.
> That any work be done to merge Lojban and Loglan into the same
> language, or even into similar languages? I have no interest in that,
> and I doubt many Lojbanists dating from after the split (the clear
> majority) do either.
I am not interested in merging the languages. I've forgotten most of my
Loglan anyway.
> That we recognise Loglan is a sibling language, and that Loglanists may
> have insights of value to Lojban? Doesn't do any harm, but I don't see
> the big deal. McIvor is welcome to sit in on the BPFK, I suppose. But
> he sits on it as a Lojbanist, not a Loglanist: I'm not doing a thing to
> advance language merger, only to advance the interests of Lojban.
McIvor is not on the BPFK, is he? Why not invite him? What about Alex
Leith? What about tracking down those Russians? I understand that
lojbab has some native Russian speakers in his house. :-)
> Personally, I think the best respect to Loglan is done by leaving them
> alone, to their own language. We're not at war, but I really don't see
> the point in actively pinching people. A little bilingualism never hurt
> anybody.
Au contraire. I found abandoning my Loglan vocabulary painful.
> So Steven, please clarify what you'd want.
More wisdom than has been shown so far, nothing more.
> (And btw, rejoice! We finally have an Academy [of sorts] :-) )
Umm, well, I have no objection to the Academy as it was created. I
posted extensively about this topic to the listserv about this in the
past.
And by the way, thanks for your work to more lojban forward. I do
appreciate that.
-Steven
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
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