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

[lojban] Re: livejournal discrimination

My two cents on a well written argument (I say this up front before blasting that argument): 

Hugh O'Byrne wrote:
On 11/8/06, *Matt Arnold* <matt.mattarn@gmail.com <mailto:matt.mattarn@gmail.com>> wrote: 

    I suggest that one person is too few.

...
You see the first teenager wearing a Livestrong wrist band, you say it's one person, that's not a trend, it'll never be a fashion, there's not enough people doing it. _Wait_. *See* if it becomes a fashion, even if it's not your style, even if none of your current friends adopt the style right away, before you pass judgement.
His current friends define what is style, and he and his friends have EARNED the right to pass judgment.
In the world of fashion (I presume you're not a designer or a major retailer of fashion here), you'll just look silly, out-of-touch, not groovin' with the beat of the next generation, or whatever they say these days.
Lojban has never really catered to the concepts of fashion. The whole concept of Lojban is a challenge to the "fashion" of language. That it is seen by many as a language of "nerds" bespeaks its unfashionableness. 

> Certainly you won't make new friends.
If the cost of making friends is to compromise principle, then the friends made are not necessarily valuable.
> In this metaphor applied to the world of Lojban, you come off as obstructionist
I plead guilty; lojbab has a reputation of being obstructionist (I've resisted solutions to the "la" issue discussed in another thread, for instance). In language design, I think that is a good thing. Otherwise the language changes faster than people learn it.
As a broader principle, if a language and its usage responds to every whim of fashion, then there are soon no standards for correctness. English has tended towards such anarchy. Lojban is designed to be resistant to that anarchy. It has standards of correctness. Some might say that the standards of correctness for Lojban have such a reputation that the language intimidates people, who are afraid to try to use the language for fear of making a mistake.
I don't fear people making mistakes. I do resist approaches that enhance the likelihood of error. The writing of Lojban speech stream rather than words is such an approach. 


and short-sighted;
That, on the other hand, I don't plead guilt. Considering that much of my design work was made with utter ignorance of linguistics, I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of times something I changed or added from the version devised by JCB has turned out through serendipity to be a correct and far-seeing choice. 

> Lojban is always eager to make new friends.

Lojban is not a person and is not eager to do anything.


I suggest that saying "one person is too few" is a premature judgement.
At this point, change is a bad thing. Especially change merely for the sake of doing something different. That is not "premature" judgment. It is a fundamental principle in a language designed around the concept of a language baseline.
Experimentation is permitted in Lojban, but it is highly marked and deemed variant until it is proven to be useful. In that sense, one person is far too few. 


    Lojban is uniquely vulnerable to the pursuit of perfection at the cost
    of interoperability.

'Vulnerable'... as if that were a weakness.


It is, in a language.
MOST artificial languages have succumbed to the tendency to attract people who are more interested in inventing languages than in using them. Creativity is a good thing, but in a new artificial language, if that creativity is aimed at challenging the as-yet unestablished-by-habit norms of usage, then it serves to interfere with that establishment of norms.
Natural languages have built in standards in the form of a native speaking population that learned the language as a mother tongue. Habits learned from birth are hard to change. Lojban has no such native speakers, and its standards consist of documents made up of words written in English. 


We have diverging values here.
Probably we do. Diversity is a good thing, but diverging values may not be, when a Lojbanic culture is as-yet incipient. 

> Not too long ago, the number of people who spoke Lojban was zero,

so interoperability was not a concern at all.


It was a concern long before anyone spoke the language.
Some languages are designed to be artistic, and interoperability is not a concern. Lojban had to be designed to be used. 

> It was *just* a pursuit of perfection.
Loglan under JCB erred in being a pursuit of perfection. Lojban since I started work on it has been a pursuit of "good enough". The pursuit of perfection has been the death of many artificial languages. Instead I tried for a high but realistic standard of "good enough", at which point the language would stop changing (growth in the form of new vocabulary being permitted).
The baseline is intended to continue until at least 5 years AFTER the baseline is fully documented (i.e. when byfy is finished), at which time discussion of changes can be entertained, BUT ONLY IN LOJBAN. And I would argue that I will only respect changes discussed in standard Lojban (i.e. where deviations from normal usage are honest mistakes).
I will tolerate changes used when they seem incidental to the otherwise-standard language demonstrated by the speaker.
I will completely ignore writings by those whose primary interest is experimentation before they have mastered the basics of the language.
In order to get to the point where people can and do speak standard Lojban so as NOT to have to resort to English or other languages, artistic deviation isn't going to be appreciated. 

And this is by my design.

> For those of us with grand hopes for the language (that
it will last a long time and gain a significant following), the number of current speakers of Lojban is _still_ a very small number. 

It is.
Speaking personally, I think one of the biggest misperceptions *I* had is a matter of timing. Lojban has gone past its design stage. In doing that, it has lost something, some of its appeal.
By intent, it lost that appeal. We welcome Lojban users. We don't especially welcome those who want to design new variations of Lojban; they are tolerated, at best.
We've had numerous such people, and some have become significant contributing members of the community, most notably And Rosta. xorxes has also sometimes adopted deviant usages, and was resented for this. He has survived that resentment by being truly voluminous in his Lojban output and his other work for the language and community. (On the other hand, I personally still feel some emotional resistance to reading xorxes because of that past tendency towards deviation) 

> It still _seems_ very
fresh, fresh enough that design can still be worked on, but it has really gotten quite static. Such is the way of things.
Such is the intent of things. A language has to be perceived as static for many people to even consider learning it.
Creativity is still welcomed in expanding the lexicon, though usually only if it is documented in jbovlaste or some other form with full definitions including place structures, or in texts wherein meaning can be established by context if not from the morphological clues designed in the language. It is welcomed in expression, by people actually using the language. 


    Lokadin is the latest reformer among countless.


None of which have been appreciated, at least not for being reformers.
Copying your personification error, Lojban doesn't WANT reformers. Lojban wants users. 


    Eventually Lokadin will realize that no one is reading what he writes
    in Lojban because there do not exist a sufficiently large number of
    expert Lojbanists yet.
You cannot make that determination. You do not know that 'no one' will read his posts.
Matt's argument seems to me to be based on the fact that there aren't enough people who are willing and able to read others' texts in Lojban even when they are written in the standard form.
I will add that few of those are skilled enough to really "read Lojban" (as opposed to translating all the words and applying the known grammar, which I admit is my own norm still). A truly skilled Lojbanist would be one who does not have to bring to mind the English meanings of words as part of understanding the Lojban.
(For this reason I stand by my choice to use Lojban grammatical terminology - most Lojbanists, even if they think in Lojban for no other words, understand gismu and cmavo and lujvo and tanru entirely as Lojban words and not as their English equivalents - but that is beside the point).
There may be people who will TRY to read his experimental texts, but between his experimentation and his errors, and the general lack of fluency among those who might try, it is not clear that any will succeed.
Early Lojbanist Michael Helsem, a poet, got a reputation for writing great volume of ungrammatical but very artistic quasi-Lojban. A lot of people looked at his writing, because there was so much of it posted. But relatively few ever *read* his poetry. And then only after he learned the language a bot better.
His writing was useful mostly as a bad example, for teaching correct usage, and you will find my word by word analysis in old issues of Ju'i Lobypli on the archives. 

Unorthodoxy invites criticism.


It is an invalid statement.
It might be. But until someone answers him in Lojban and we witness several exchanges of conversation in-language, I will be skeptical. 

> Writing such a thing is overgeneralising, - even insulting.

I think it was intended to be.
1) it is certainly an insult to those who intentionally write in deviational style.
2) it is to some extent an insult to those who would waste their time *trying* to read deviational style when there is lots of material written in better Lojban, and when ultimately, supporting variant versions of the language harms the language and the community. 

> You accuse me of being a snob,
The Lojban community *is* snobbish. Inferior usage is looked down upon, though tolerated if it is honest error. Intentional deviation would be accepted only from someone who has established their bona fide skill. 

This is not a bad thing.
This is not to say that unorthodoxy is banned. I am outspoken in support of free speech. I'll tolerate someone unorthodox to considerable extent (as I am tolerating LOkadin), but I approve of only good Lojban, and I won't read LOkadin to find out if it is any good.
> that I am superficial, that I will reject the substance of lOkadin's posts 
simply because of their form.
I do. And not because I am superficial, but because I am strongly principled, and don't want to waste my limited Lojban time on what MIGHT be substance, but at best is substance dressed in a Halloween costume, which makes it look ridiculous. 

> Either that, or you call me 'no one'.
I've been called 'no-one' before. I don't like it, but on the balance, it is more of a bad reflection on the society that says it than on the ones they say it to.
I am not offended if you say that my snobbishness "is a bad reflection on the society".
It concedes that the Lojban community has sufficient cohesion so as to be CALLED a "society".
And the only way we can have that, is by having shared values, and indeed, being "snobbish" towards those who challenge those values without having first shown that they understand them and their ramifications.
(What do you mean by "a sufficiently large number of expert Lojbanists", anyway? Perhaps "a sufficiently large number of expert Lojbanists", to lOkadin, is "one person who will try and read my posts". It is not up to you to decide what is 'sufficient'.)
But it is. In writing HIS opinion, what HE feels is "sufficient" is at least as correct as what LOkadin feels is "sufficient". And Matt's opinion has more likelihood of matching that of the community at large, because Matt has already established his bona fide membership in that community. 


    The only way to acheive that would be
    consistent conformity, so that it is easier for beginners to learn
    Lojban.
First, he does conform to the Lojban spec (at least in regards capitalisation and spacing, as far as I can tell; I'm willing to be educated further on this subject if someone feels the need to enlighten me). Second, even if he does not conform to you and your friends, he chose this mailing list, lojban, *not* lojban-beginners, to post in. He is not replacing existing lessons with ones this style. He is not trying to jeopardize the established learning curve. 

He may not be trying to, but he certainly isn't helping.
And it is more likely that he will discourage rather than encourage others in learning the standard language. 

> Third, conforming
with you and your friends is not the *only* way to get a large number of expert Lojbanists.
If they don't conform, then they will not be *recognized* as "expert Lojbanists". 

> It may be the easiest way (short-term), it may be

the fastest way, but it's not the only way.
It is the only way that most of us are willing to support. At best those who do other things will be tolerated; but they should expect some hostility to the extent that they distract from those working in the mainstream. 

> Fourth, you imply that a
group of experts is a necessary prerequisite to lOkadin's being understood,
One could argue that if someone figures out what LOkadin said, then he has communicated successfully. 

But the question is whether he has communicated successfully IN LOJBAN.
Only expert Lojbanists could judge whether someone has communicated successfully IN LOJBAN.
and that this state of affairs has not come about yet; however, if lOkadin has the generous interpretation of "group of experts" I give above, this state is already achieved today.
But does anyone care what LOkadin's interpretation is, other than LOkadin. Matt, being an elected member of the LLG Board, has some standing to speak for the community. It is the opinion of the Lojban community and not of individuals that matters (as I myself have sometimes found out to my chagrin). 


    By not conforming to the standard, Lokadin is not contributing
    to the goal of expertise that would make it possible to deviate from
    that standard and still be widely understood.
That he is even attempting to use Lojban should be a clue that 'widely understood' is not his biggest concern :)
Even if he is not contributing to bringing about the state of affairs you mention, what you consider to be a prerequisite for more fruitful pursuit of the direction he has taken, he is not hindering it either.
But it is. All of the time spent discussing LOkadin could have been spent reading and writing Lojban. Controversy is only valuable if it attracts new people (and controversy in Lojban List about the standards of the language has historically been more likely to drive people away than attract them).
Maybe he's jumping the gun; maybe it would be more convenient if he did it when a 'sufficiently large' group could support him. All that means is, he's a pioneer, he's ahead of his time.
He is only ahead of his time if the community ends up going where he is at now. Most of us in the community don't want us to end up where he is at now, and therefore he is no pioneer but rather a schismatic.
Schismatics have been the death of almost every artificial language that has developed a community, and the weakening of the few that have survived (the birth of Ido certainly did not do Esperanto any favors). Thus it is wisdom for an artificial language enthusiast to be virulently paranoid about schismatic tendencies. 


    When he realizes that,
    Lojban will cease to be any fun for him.
You speak with such certainty on his motivations. Do you know him personally? As for me, I think it's more likely it's the company of this forum that will cease to be fun for him, not the language (though some on the forum don't seem to know the difference between the two any more).
A language without a community is not a language but rather a "language definition" or a "language development project". 


The Lojban freeze is long over.


NO IT IS NOT!!!!!

Not even close.
If it were, then byfy wouldn't still be struggling to define what is frozen. There would be no reason to do so.
And "la" in names wouldn't be an issue because the language would have already changed in some way to resolve the issue.
The freeze isn't supposed to end until we have enough people speaking the language that Lojban List will discuss such issues *only* in Lojban. I arbitrarily set a 5 year MINIMUM under a completed baseline to ensure this. 

Don't hold your breath waiting for the freeze to end.
And even if it wasn't, I'm not convinced yet that lOkadin's style of writing is, in fact, nonstandard. Unorthodox, yes. 

Same difference.

Unorthodox is not "according to the established doctrine".
He is pushing the limits of the language, to see how it works. Even _if_ he finds out in the end that it's impractical for everyday use, his experimentation within the language helps him (and any others who choose to follow him) figure out the shape of language. That could be valuable insight, and insight in the very same nature as Lojban as a whole inspires. IMHO, this is _not_ to be discouraged.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as LOkadin is entitled to deviate. But the rest of us are entitled to disagree and to reject deviation. 

...
What makes some people uncomfortable is being put in a situation which demonstrates snobbishness they don't want to admit to. I'm a type of snob, I'll admit it; if you're not going to read lOkadin's messages for the superficial appearance of his posts, you're a snob too. Live with it. Don't take it out on him if you judge him superficially and at the same time want to believe yourself enlightened and egalitarian.
Matt *is* enlightened (even when I disagree with him). You seem to think he *wants* to be egalitarian.
The Lojban community is an informal meritocracy. One gains a reputation for being "enlightened" by doing lots of good work. Respect is earned, and not automatic. One can get away with considerably more unorthodoxy if one first establishes one's merit.
(Colin Fine, a skilled Lojbanist, tried LOkadin's trick of writing without spaces back in 1992 - LOkadin is not being nearly as avant garde as he might think. It went over like a lead balloon, but Colin retained community respect because he had already earned that respect). 

lojbab



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.