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

Re: [lojban] Retraction &c, Part 2

At 03:46 AM 8/19/01 -0700, Nick Nicholas wrote:

7. Sense and Responsibility
7a. "Why Lojban?"

In the attitude to Lojban I will conventionally characterise as
'naturalistic', it is objected that 'hardliner' insistence on rigour
(particularly semantic rigour) places unwelcome constraints on creativity.
That is not my complaint, though it seems true. Rather, it inhibits USAGE and exploration and thus slows down learning of the language by people who seem to think they are being told that they will be jumped all over for any violation of a rule that they don't completely understand.
Skilled Lojbanists are welcome to seek the rigorous ideal. But most of us are still learning and a focus on rigor is out of place so long as communication succeeds.
The fact that you, Nick, feel that Lojban is "difficult" as compared to, say, Klingon, suggests that the goal of rigor is interfering with language acquisition. 


There are several "hardliner" responses to this. One, which was And's, is
"Why Lojban?" To elaborate, I rephrase it as "Why not Klingon?"

I know Klingon is a red flag to many here (including xod, to whom this is
primarily directed.) Allow me to explain (and, admittedly, to be
indifferent as to whether it's a red flag or not):

If all that is sought is that the language be alien from English, Lojban
certainly provides that. But it is not the only language that provides it.
Klingon does too. So does Chinese. And Tok Pisin.
Lojban has several goals. Those other languages do not cater to all of Lojban's goals. 



Therefore, the hardliner (well, a hardliner. OK, me) argues, if you want to
play with Lojban, you may be free to be creative, but you have to accept
certain constraints on your creativity. Those constraints are to maintain
Lojban identifiable as Lojban. If you don't like the constraints Lojban
imposes, go use Klingon instead.
And those constraints at this point are limited to the syntax and the lexicon, which are all that are baselined. The semantics of the language are not baselined, and we have expressly chosen NOT to do so any more than necessary. 


In fact, of course, noone is so die-hard a naturalist that they completely
reject the Lojbanic constraints. (Although I must admit to some hardliner
disquiet when I see Helsem laying down the law on what is or isn't
{lobykai}.) I am not therefore saying to xod or to anyone else "Go use
Klingon instead"; Heaven forbid! The issue is where the line is drawn. The
hardliner wants more constraints than the naturalist. But it should be
uncontroversial that a "Lojbanist of good faith" is already limited by the
constraints of Lojban grammaticality and *grosso modo* semantics.
The Lojbanist of good faith is limited by the constraints of what others are able and *willing* to understand. If one wishes to communicate with an audience of hardliners, then one cannot be as sloppy as when one is having a casual conversation with a naturalist. 


Whether compromise or mutually agreed boundaries on what is and isn't
Lojbanically acceptable can be negotiated, I cannot tell. I am much less
optimistic this week about it than I was last month. Once again, this is
now a community issue.
It has always been a community issue, and I see no reason why the situation is different now than it was when you wrote your Wallops or various people entered the ckafybarja. 


8. Proper lujvo

xod, I *think*, believes it unreasonable that lujvo should be demanded to
be intelligible at first sight/a priori. John, I *think*, agrees, citing
the case of camcinki, and would be much happier with a fu'ivla for Web.
Very well; but I have to point out that this is not the conclusion we
arrived at in Klingon.

(And, by the by, since people are saying certain lujvo are better than
others, they are certainly using *some* criteria to evaluate them, and they
are not resigning themselves to the impossibility of such evaluation.)
I support Helsem. Certain lujvo are better in certain circumstances but others may be better in other circumstances, and the criteria may be individual. Why must there be one correct answer for all contexts? 


9. Hardlinism.

Hardlinism is indeed ultimately signing up for an impossible task, as xod
characterised it. I can only answer that so is the whole of Lojban. I am
profoundly sceptical that human beings can, *in their conversational use of
Lojban*, really speak in LALR(1) grammar, and always remember not to
include {la} in Lojban names, and always remember to pause after vocatives.
That it is impossible does not mean we don't have a lot to learn from the
valiant attempt to do it anyway.
Once we acquire some sort of idiomatic skill, all of this impossibility will be no problem, in my opinion. One doesn't need to think LALR(1) in order to remember that le broda ku joi le brode requires that the ku not be elided. You once jokingly started writing it as kujoi out of irritation that the formal language required something you as a human did not. To which I reply, "fine". If we develop the habit of including a few extra terminators when things are a little confusing, we will be less likely to violate the grammatical rules.
As for la in names, this is a bootstrapping issue. People in natural languages don't usually have to make up or translate new names on the fly. We stress it in teaching because it gets people to learn and to think about Lojban phonology.
Learning when to pause seems to be part of natural language prosody. Why should it be unnatural to have prosodic rules in Lojban? 


2,3mai: Like I said, a semantic theory is ultimately unachievable, but that
does not make further formalisation of semantics not worthwhile or
intractable
But should that formalization be primarily descriptive or prescriptive? In no other language, including so far as I know other conlangs, is there a prescriptive semantics theory or formalization. I'm not sure it is is even possible. 


I am clearly approaching Lojban quite differently to what I used to; as I
said in my monologue in Lojban above, I've learned some things that made me
change my mind, but I also think I've changed as a person.


Yet you would deny to the rest of us the chance to evolve with the language.


It is possible that I am being petty in a lot of this. It is hard for me to
be humble, harder for me to admit I'm wrong, and hardest of all, I've now
learned, to realise that I may still think I'm right, but that doesn't mean
I'm going to have my way.


Join the club %^)  I learned this lesson when I lost on gumri 10 years ago.


That said, I also think I'm thinking about Lojban quite differently to how
many others do. I obviously have some reevaluating to do.

So in translating the following passage from the conclusion to General
Makriyannis' _Memoirs_ --- a passage which never fails to move me to tears
--- I address this more to myself than to anyone else. As a reminder that
it is not all about me.
It is about all of us who use the language. We all thank you for your years of contribution and hope you will be with us for many more (even when we disagree with you %^). 


So, one last self-indulgence (which probably violated all my hardlinisms
anyway),


.i'e

lojbab
--
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