Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Thursday 08 April 2010 21:47:09 Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> One place where we differ is that I no longer think usage should
> decide *ever*.  Unless the BPFK becomes totally controlled by a pack
> of drooling morons, of course usage will be acknowledged and
> respected, and the BPFK may *choose* to promote usage to the status
> of officialness, but we should not let the language drift via usage.
> It should be well specified.

What will happen once there is a critical mass of verclijbo?

> I also don't think that describing the lanugage is what we
> should be doing.  We should be *declaring* the language.

Does this include declaring the meaning of lujvo and fu'ivla?

> I disagree.  You can have a large, popular language without it being
> subject to random, unfettered linguistic; see, for example, French.

Twenty years ago the AF declared an orthographic reform. (The way I found out 
about it was seeing the word "cigüe" (hemlock (umbellifer), new spelling) in 
Wiktionary.) Some parts of the reform I agree with ("ciguë" looks strange 
with the dieresis on the silent letter), some I don't ("coût" (cost) should 
retain the circumflex because it represents a lost "s"). Can we have some 
Lojbanists accepting some, but not all, of the rulings of the BPFK?

Pierre
-- 
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.