Re: mutual project

[William Tanksley <wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>]

On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 05:59:24PM +0100, Colin Fine wrote:
> [wtanksle wrote:]
> >BTW, I just noticed that the loglanists are hosted from my school, UCSD.
> >Do you guys meet on campus?

Still curious...

> >I don't find it too suprising, simply because the project approaches are
> >so dissimilar.  The Loglanders (if I may) have a non-fixed language which
> >can be tinkered with and improved; the Lojbanistanis have a static
> >language which can be studied.  We (as always) have quite a bit to learn
> >from the results of our studies, but very little to help the studies
> >themselves.

> >If there's any suprise to be found, it's that Lojban was started from
> >something as seemingly unsuited to it as Loglan (no insult intended, let
> >me explain).  Lojban, as far as I can tell, was intended to be a free
> >language, like Linux is a free OS.  It's odd that the founders used
> >Loglan, a non-free (copyrighted with trade secrets) language as a basis.

> That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way.

That's a newbie's impression gained by reading most of the web pages,
which is all I have available.  I assume from your words that you know how
it actually happened; I'm all ears.

Such documentation would, I suspect, be a good thing to post on both web
pages.  I suspect that if done right it would help to heal some parts of
the rift (although as I said before, I don't think the two languages will
ever merge).

> >> I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in
> >> coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in
> >> some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more
> >> interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you
> >> do that instead, and let's see what effects they have".

> >One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from
> >such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change
> >for at least five years.

> Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people
> tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we
> make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part
> of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us
> 'exploring' as you put it.

Nothing stops anyone -- we're all free agents.  We still generally start
out wanting to do something, and choosing the best tool for that job.  If
you want to modify a language, you'll prefer a language which is open for
modification.

> >The Loglanders would indeed do well (I suspect) to watch Lojban and
> >imitate the successes while shunning the mistakes -- but how can we tell
> >the differences?  Artificial selection doesn't work when we don't have a
> >selection criterion.

> There are probably not going to be many objective mistakes. But there
> can be subjective preferences, and sometimes things that usage shows
> work better or not so well. 

That's the hope.  Well, good luck to us all.

> |     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
"But you shall not escape my iambics."
           -- Gaius Valerius Catullus