Re: A First Words in Lojban

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

>i ue i ma se sivju'o cmima lei terjvo stura javni i lei stura javni
>cu mutce le ka zmadu lei rafsi jongau javni le ka sampu
>i e'o ma mupli le ka se sivju'o kei lei stura javni

Sorry I don't have the time to actually reply to this in Lojban.  I am
presuming that you are using sivju'o for "esoteric".  This was not my intended
meaning of esoteric, though it might apply.

Sufficeit to say that the application of the lujvo-making convention rules
is indeed esoteric even in your sense.  There is no evidence that any
two people apply them in the same way, and Nick Nicholas, who came up
with them, did not apply them consistently when he devised the place
structures for his lujvo list, which he composed at the same time he was
actyually writing up those rules.

Nora (my wife for novices) worked for several weeks analyzing Nick's
lujvo list to see if she agreed with his place structures, according to
his rules.  A significant percentage did not fit his, and for many words
Nora found that she disagreed with his analysis/justification for the
particular rules he did use, even when he followed them.  Part of this
is of course a problem in translating the semantics of English words, which
need not be perfect in Lojban.

Nora has had some discussions with John Cowan on her sense of disagreements,
and I believe they came to some meeting of minds, but it was not one which
necessarily makes the decision of place structures for lujvo to be included
in the dictionary an easy process.  Rather, that decision will indeed be
based on Nora's (or someone else's) personal understanding of and priority
of application of the various rules and the English definitions of the
gismu and the cncepts being expressed as lujvo. This isn't comfortable - it
risks severe malglico incorporation of concepts.  but it appears to be
the only way we can get the lujvo place structures reviewed.

In short then, my argument is that, if any two people reasonably skilled
in the lujvo-making rules in the Book (or even in the larger set originally
in Nick' paper) attempts to analyze the lujvo already created and analyzed,
they will disagree with many of Nick's place structures and no two people
will come up with the same disagreements.  This is strong evidence that
the rules are indeed a sort of private knowledge.

I don't think this is necessarily bad for Lojban.  But I still trust people's
novice instincts as to what words SHOULD mean in order to be useful in
language over any sort of rigorous analysis or convention.  Thus a novice
may violate the conventions grossly in trying to express an idea, but if
the idea is understood, then communications has occured.  maybe a more
expert Lojban will want to modify the nonce lujvo to insert a "se"toget the
sumti in the right order, or  use a different gismu that includes a place
that the novice's gismu choice does not actually have as part of the semantics,
but this will always be after-the-fact, incomplete, and not necessarily
universally agreed on. We then have to decide whether only words that everyone
 pretty much agreeson go in the dictionary, or whether we will allow some degree
of sloppiness and disagreement as to the applicability of some lujvo place
structures.   The fact that the dictionary is a baseline document is of
coursepart of the problem, as sloppiness in the dictionary place structures
becomes lasting sloppiness until/unless the baseline is reviewed many years
later.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.