What have we learned in developing Lojban? Anything publishable?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

I just posted the following to the indicated newsgroups as part of a longer
essay.

>Subject: Re: Science as Practiced
>Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.scientists,sci.skeptic
>Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
>Summary: prescriptive models are not good science
>Keywords: prescriptive, descriptive, models, artificial language, Loglan/Lojban
>
>bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) responds to me:
>>#sounds like a good example of how science actually DOES work, regardless
>>#of how a noted scientist felt about it.
>>
>>Do you understand the difference between a prescriptive model and a
>>descriptive one?  Let me put that another way -- if you were a football
>>coach, would you tell your team "hey, it's ok if your passes get
>>intercepted or if you fumble the ball or get sacked, because those
>>things are all part of the game"?  Do you think that such advice would
>>increase the likelihood that your team would win?  Why not?
>
>1) I suspect that I understand the difference between a prescriptive model
>and a descriptive one *at least* as well as you and probably better.
>
>Remember, I am the one who is leading a research project based on
>inventing an artificial language as a vehicle to investigate human
>language.  The language design of Lojban is purely a prescriptive model
>of language - the language is not spoken fluently (yet), and there is no
>proof that if/when it is spoken fluently, it will be spoken strictly in
>accordance with the prescription.  Indeed, we expect to learn a lot
>about language simply by observing HOW actual language use differs from
>the prescription (and we arguably have already learned a lot based on
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>how human speakers have attempted to use the language, even
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>non-fluently, in ways contrary to the existing prescription).
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>It has been our stated research protocol that at some point when we feel
>that the prescription has been well enough defined, that we will switch
>from prescriptive mode to descriptive mode, at which time the
>prescription will come to eventually have the same effect on actual
>language use that prescriptive teaching of English has on actual English
>use.  But since unlike English, our prescription will be a complete and
>a priori model, we may learn more from comparing the descriptive models
>that emerge from actual usage with the prescription.  For one thing, we
>may learn something about the extent that a prescription actually
>affects usage.  We have the natural languages as a control, and
>Esperanto as a intermediate model:  not as fully prescribed as
>Loglan/Lojban, and having a community less informed of the details of
>the prescription than many English speakers have of English, but having
>a social community that places greater emphasis on following the
>prescription than does any natural language community.

I went on to state (at length) that prescriptive theories are not good
science and that good science must ultimately be descriptive; i.e. it
must be based on what really happens rather than what we think should
happen.

But writing the highlighted text made me wonder:

What have we actually learned from the way people have tried to use
Lojban and earlier versions of Loglan?  I *believe* that we have learned
a lot, but if pressed for specifics, I would have to do a lot of
thinking.  For one thing, it is hard to sort out what I've learned based
on what has actually happened, from what I've learned through continuing
to study linguistics and in studying Russian.

Have we in fact learned anything about language in developing and trying
to use Loglan/Lojban that is not already well-known and/or uninteresting
to the linguistics community at-large?  If we can identify thing(s) in
this vein, we have a strong basis for publishable papers that will
establish our scientific credibility, and lead to us maybe getting
funding for 'real' research.

An important if not vital question.  Any takers???

My best candidate of the moment for something significant learned solely
through usage of the language and resulting changes to the prescription
has been the existence of the phenomenon we call 'sumti-raising'.  We
might also have learned something from the steady increase in use of
non-logical connectives, but I'm not sure what in particular.  Study and
usage of many of the more novel features of the language (including
tenses, attitudinals, and lujvo semantics) is still at too preliminary a
stage to say that human usage has significantly affected design or
concept.

lojbab
----
lojbab                           Note new address:    lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273