Lojban,
as what people say when they say they are doing Lojban, will change
constantly and in uncontrolled ways. Lojban, as the language that
has official imprimatur (however that may be gained, right now from
BPFK, apparently), will also change but more slowly and in more
controlled ways. That it will change (or die, of course) is a result
of its being a language. That its official form will change slowly
and in a controlled way is a result of the kind of language it is:
constructed and logical, especially the latter.
Hidden assumption that any change that happens by us (since any change would be deemed not official) is therefore made hastily and illogicaly. Sorry, are you trying to convince us?
“Logical”
here has two interrelated parts. The first of these is that Lojban
is to be syntactically unambiguous, every grammatical utterance has a
unique parse which tells how the sentence is to be interpreted. The
second is that this is to be achieved by taking the languages syntax
from that of First Order Predicate Logic (actually some higher order
intensional logic, a la Montague, but that does not make a difference
to the basic point here).
Now, someone who knows FOPL would be hard
pressed to find it in Lojban; many things have had to be changed to
make a usable language (every other _expression_ in FOPL is a
parenthesis of some sort, for example, or some equally non-content
_expression_). These impose restrictions on how the official language
can change, since the connection with FOPL cannot be broken for fear
of losing unambiguity (or, at least, a relatively easy way to claim
it, although this connection is not really exploited), and, even if
the connection is lost, unambiguity must be maintained.
Another hidden presumption that any change that's not official (hence those made by us, somehow weaken Lojban's connection to FOPL or makes it more ambiguous.
So, any
change has to be checked to see that it does not affect this prime
quality (basically, Lojban's only special feature – it and Loglan
are hardly the only languages with socket-and-plugs core syntax). So
there is always going to be a prescriptive element in Lojban.
This assumes that the community that speaks lojban is incapable of maintaining this prime quality and its degredation is not a mere effect, as you note, of the language's need to function as a language.
That
being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have
nothing to do with this central ground.
Well thank you then, for those many hidden assumptions that were an irrelevant segue to your actual points.
Changing the meaning of one
of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.
You're right it doesn't.
Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't
matter to Lojban.
I think people care a lot about whether this or that change has the prerogative to denote itself as official.
Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban
community, dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another
in some particular circumstances.
Ignoring the fact that people misunderstand each other anyway, le'ts continue on...
For the development of the
language, this can have serious consequences, cutting one group off
from the accumulated lore of the past and the other group off from
new material as it comes in, breaking continuity. It tends moreover
to tick off more experienced speakers, who have learned the older
form and are now asked to relearn (which is very hard – I still,
nearly 40 later, am most likely to come up with a Loglan word as my
first attempt).
This is overtly dramatic. In the community I'm from, we're forced to find practical solutions to real difficulties in using Lojban as a medium of communication, that adhere to Lojban's core principle, we are also forever burdened with the responsibility to keep a clear division between what is and isn't official and laboriously explain this to anyone coming accross these details because Lojban lacks an effective and active mechanism through leadership to bring about the changes required for it continue to used on the ground. If some are to begrudge the requirement to slightly update their internalization of vocabularly is too much of a burden then those people have zero recourse for even you say, lojban must change (to ever better support the act of communication) or die.
And, alas, all this tends to create internal
tensions, which can tear a constructed-language community apart,
resulting, typically, in, first, two much smaller groups in
competition, then one still rather small group, then nothing in that
line at all.
It tears the community apart because of the unmoving, offensive and completely unsatisfying disposition and demeanor as displayed by the President of the thing for which we are talking. To blame the practical needs of the language on its strife is disingenuous at best, distracting from solutions at worst.
But
this doesn't have to happen,
No it really doesn't.
especially if, as here, the changes are
made in remote (so, by assumption, less used) holes: it would be a
long time before the two sides noticed that one side had dropped x5
of {klama}, say.
This strengthens the dissoance affect you're trying to avoid. Changes should be made as soon as possible and as transparently as possible. Your position makes you come up with some very odd conclusions.
While rational language teaching material is still not as
available as would be nice,
And do you have any insight as to why this is the case? Here's some for you. I know a handful of people who would LOVE to write teaching material but are CONFLICTED by the pressure to no codify any of the enhancements, optimizations, aesthetic changes, or any other heresy deemed unofficial *despite* those being changes everyone around them is utilizing. Some have even gone ahead and written these materials.
most of what is available teaches
vocabulary in context, stressing the useful part and introducing both
sockets and their holes as needed.) Of course, that raises the issue
of why bother to change these holes and the answer seems to be that
the changes are to satisfy some extrinsic goal: symmetry or
“orderliness” or “ease of learning” (which, in context,
suggest that learning predicates is done by mini-pumping, learning
all the motion words at once, say – a possible but rarely ideal
approach).
This sounds like analysis from someone who does not utilize the language whatsoever. The experience of the entirety of a gismu takes place the very first time you look up the gismu. The implication that one is only ever exposed to the full content of a brivla if they 'predicate pumping' the lexicon is absurd. Furthermore the assertion that someone is doing something wrong in their need for any place of any gismu at anytime as 'overdoing' it or any other critique is also absurd.
So not central issues at all.
Please. You haven't demonstrated that at all.
Further, we have all the
usual tools of language for dealing with dialects and diachronic
change. We recognize the differences and translate and, if we don't,
we ask for an explanation when the discussion obviously runs off the
rails. Thus, vocabulary changes are just not important.
Seriously? Did you actually stop read the product of the typing it took you to create this? Its incredible.
Well,
a few are and these are all among cmavo.
Its no surprise that we would eventually lead back to this. That it is couched in a prologue about how the vocabulary supposedly doesn't matter is bewildering.
Obviously, if you change
the meaning of {a} you have changed the connection to FOPL, and
similarly with other expressions clearly tied to logic. But this
tends to expand outward. If you change definition {ai} to or from
factive (I don't remember where it is right now; it has changed at
least five times in 60 years), you change the whole logical structure
of the utterance of which it is a part, and many expressions have
this feature. The possibilities for misunderstanding are now at a
more profound level, even if, technically, the same cures are
available. So, for these kinds of changes, control is again needed.
Control is not needed. Capable minds, cooperatively and openly discussing these matters with the ability to affect the changes implied by their conclusions is what is needed. Control is an entirely worthless concept to lojban that only serves to make the language incredibly brittle overtime. It represents nothing but obstacles for the language's inevitable evolution over time. The dispositions of capable jbopre are enough. We do not need to further institutionalize is dramatically saturated and vivid gridlock.
And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as – for
various reason – apparently we do not.
Just because no one has written a version of the CLL that reflects a Lojban that isn't known anymore does not mean that speakers utilizing the language today do not know its featureset. The jbopre that you're fighting against, know the entire history as it is on paper, know the content of the BPFK pages, know the small changes in usage and all the experimental cmavo. We not only know what Bob thinks lojban is, but also what lojban might be after a succession of BPFK proposal votes, but also the language we actually use. Saying "we don't know where we are" are the words of someone who does not actually use the language and is simply trying to proliferate the decade yet implemented policies as having anything to do with what is relevant to lojban today.
So,
if you accept that the cmavo are not completed, that is the priority
task and any activity that might be directed to that task but goes to
something else is a waste or even an attack on Lojban.
The idea that lojban has more than a single need, which makes all other needs than the one you would like carried out first, by wills other than your own, makes you look hypocritical and lazy. No one is stopping you from completing any agenda you wish. Please do not insult us along the way of wishing we would do work your prioritize over the work we prioritize for ourselves. It makes literally no sense to do this and who is moved by this poor form is anyone's guess.
Since
meddling with gismu is a task very similar to organizing the cmavo,
it will appear to Lojbab et al as such a waste (or, given the tone of
the proclamation of undertaking that task, an attack).
This is the end of your long thesis and this is where you are at. Just pointing that out.
On the other
hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not
going to work on cmavo (and are not obviously competent to do so
anyhow)
Nothing like leaving off with disrespectful speech from a position of pure ignorance about the character of people in your own community.
the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a
response to their tone). The best thing is just to ignore them,
pretty much. The one reason to pay attention them is the potential
they have to sow dissensions, but, for that, the appropriate response
is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites.
Whatta conclusion. And it took a MA in Linguistics and PhD in Philosophy to bring it to us.
If only you were spending that prowess writing useful speech where your hateful foregone conclusion was't rushed in attempt to demonize leaving you with a short essay that says nothing compelling and is inconsistent at best.