[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo
Jorge Llambías wrote:
I don't share your fears, probably because of our different
experiences with the language.
You started learning Loglan when it was apparently drastically
changing every month (from what you report).
No. It wasn't changing all that fast. But it was inevitably changing
yet-again, and that was a deterrent to learning for many.
> You also went through a
relatively significant change in Lojban, the rafsi reallocation.
It wasn't that significant, because only a small percentage of the rafsi
were changed, and very few people were at that stage using rafsi
constructively (it was in a sense premature to do the analysis with so
little usage, but if we had waited any longer, changes wouldn't have
been salable). Indeed, those rafsi that had seen significant usage were
decided to be off-limits in the reallocation, so that IIRC roughly half
the proposals were voted down for that reason alone.
gadri, by contrast, affect nearly every Lojban sentence, which is why
your proposal to change them met such resistance until us oldie's were
promised that it wouldn't significantly change existing text/usage
(which made it palatable but harder to understand)
The kind of changes you fear simply do not exist.
People rarely see those who drop out because something changed. It
shows up when we talk to people who have been active and are no more. I
made much more effort to talk to such people in the early years.
> Maybe this is thanks to your obstinate conservatism,
In part ^%), but obviously it hasn't been me the last 8 years.
maybe only in part thanks to that, but
the "pull the rug under your feet" kind of changes simply don't exist.
For Nora, xorlo has been just such a change. She doesn't feel like she
understands the language anymore, in some fundamental way. I won't
claim it has been for me - you have occasionally, if not often enough,
seen me post or respond to something in Lojban.
In fact, all this nonsense about "Are you using xorlo mod 2 or xorlo
mod 1?", if it exists at all, is instigated by comments like yours,
that suggest that something of ponderous magnitude is going on that
one must learn about.
Actually, I read that suggestion into Lindar's comment that you
responded to, which is why I made the comment. (I had been about to say
something entirely different than you said, in response to him.) I
repeat the relevant comments:
2. zo'e != lo. I have no idea where you folks got the idea, but AFAIK
"zo'e" is not "lo broda" or anything like that, it is simply an
unspecified sumti, and therefore we don't need a new sumti "zo'e'e" or
any such thing. It's not a particular unspecified thing, it isn't a
specific unspecified thing, and it's not a thing which really is or
isn't or is called an unspecified thing, it's just an unspecified
sumti.
...
((Sub-note: If this is wrong, then this is how a non-techy, non-
linguist, non-intelligent audio engineer has perceived how these two
gadri work, and it's clsn/Timo/ARJ that are to blame for teaching me
incorrectly.))
...
5. Frankly, I could give less than two shits what some Uni professor's
opinion of Lojban is or what some obnoxious person that I've never
seen on IRC or the mailing list (which leads me to assume they speak
little to no Lojban/haven't studied Lojban and read one article
somebody else wrote and immediately formed an opinion) before thinks
regarding the logical-ness of Lojban, and I think that as soon as we
please the bureaucrats regarding the broken bits of Lojban, we should
stop griping about every little damn thing and
...
Now I shall promptly head back into IRC to have "voi"
explained to me another 20 times and "ce'u" another 200.
I read that as someone who is trying to use the language, and is rather
fed up with running across academic discussion suggesting that the
language should be different than it is. I responded to it, being
rather sensitized to the matter after years of leading the community,
and attempting to convince such people that the discussion was not a
sign of impending change. And xorlo DID "pull the rug from under my
feet" with regard to making such reassurances, because it DID result
from just such academic discussions about a part of the language that
most of us had felt was "good enough".
But I've accepted that xorlo is now the status quo, and here we have a
discussion that seemed to indicate that xorlo isn't good enough, and you
need a new cmavo to make the definition "proper".
> I have tried to tell you in as many ways as I
can that nothing of any importance is going on,
The volume of discussion the topic generates, is what gives the
impression of importance. And it is volume coming from people like you
who are respected as experts in the language, which is why the
perception can grow that things are more unsettled than they are.
That perception about the 1994-1997 discussions that went into CLL's
gadri sections were about changes to the language, would have been
correct, because xorlo is approved as an override to CLL. Is it an
important change? Some say no, but then Robin said it was sufficiently
important that people were asking on IRC whether xorlo was being used.
> and that you can simply tune out of the whole discussion,
I've done that for 12 years. But the discussion goes on, and someone
new just complained. I can't tune out people like him who are
apparently using the language on IRC.
lojbab
--
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.