Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update

In the midst off this often depressingly puerile exchange, I found the call for a philosopher of language, so I volunteer (MA in Linguistics, PhD in Philosophy, dissertation on the borderline between logic and language, etc. etc. including teaching course in the area for forty three years, somewhere between 54 and 38 years in the logical language business, including all the available offices at TLI and editor of The Lojbanist and VP and Board member at LLG).

An impressive resume! You've certainly got my attention.

So, a curse on both your houses!

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.

“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. 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.

That being said, it must also be said that most changes in vocabulary have nothing to do with this central ground. Changing the meaning of one of the holes in a socket does not affect the heart of the language.

Except that the heart of the language includes its words! If it were possible to speak the grammar without words, we could just use FOPL and we wouldn't need a language.

Whether or not these changes are officialized or not just doesn't matter to Lojban. Of course, such a change may affect the Lojban community,

I don't see the difference.

dividing it into two groups who misunderstand one another in some particular circumstances. 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). 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.

But this doesn't have to happen, 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. (The need to know all the holes of all the sockets goes back to JCB's medieval notions of language learning and to the devices which were designed to enable “predicate pumping”. It once was the case that at least initial claims to competence amounted to a total of the number of sockets you could recognize and give all the hole-meanings for – and, eventually, all the derivational forms. While rational language teaching material is still not as available as would be nice, 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). So not central issues 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.

Vocabulary changes are not important _for making sure the language is FOPL-compliant and unambiguous_, sure. They may (or may not) be important for other purposes. One among these is making the language practical to learn and use. This may be an "extrinsic goal" by your terminology, but … if someone is ever going to finish the work of fully specifying the cmavo, we always say they need to be informed by usage. So, usage is important. And good, well-defined vocabulary is of paramount importance for generating usage.

Well, a few are and these are all among cmavo. 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. And, correspondingly, we need to know where we are now, as – for various reason – apparently we do not. The definitions of content expressions may not be perfect, but they serve (as the fact that they have served and are serving shows) and so “fixing” them is a low priority. But, if, as is claimed, the definitions of some non-content expressions is no complete or not set, this is a structural matter that needs to be fixed if we are to say the language is complete (let alone finished).

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.

In a distributed system, people can work on different things at the same time. People who are motivated to work on the cmavo will work on the cmavo. People who are motivated to meddle with the gismu will meddle with the gismu. Maybe some of these will even be the same people! (But most likely not, of course, if they are ridiculed and excluded.) I reject the idea that any work outside a narrowly defined top priority is an attack.

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). On the other hand, since the people doing the meddling are pretty clearly not going to work on cmavo

Stating it this ways sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't know where you got this idea. I doubt that _all_ of the people interested in gismu-meddling also want to work on cmavo, but again, distributed system.

(and are not obviously competent to do so anyhow),

If we're not qualified to do the work you want us to do, why attack us for not doing it? Moreover, this seems like just another attempt to discredit a group with a wave of the hand. Why not ask for qualifications, instead, if it's qualifications you want?

the tone of his response seems inappropriate (except as a response to their tone).

I agree that the tone of the response was unwarranted. I refuse to play the blame game, but if you read this exchange (and the previous one) and got the impression that Lojbab's tone is a response to someone else's -- you should read it again. Or don't, it's not very pleasant.

The best thing is just to ignore them, pretty much.

As I said in my last message, fine.

The one reason to pay attention them is the potential they have to sow dissensions,

Some regrettable things were probably said during the mudslinging, but dissent is obviously not the goal. A bright future for Lojban is the goal.

but, for that, the appropriate response is just not to allow them to use the LLG websites.

I can't stop you, but if you're worried about splitting the community, then forcibly excluding a portion of it seems to me the quickest way to make that fear a reality. In fact, it seems to almost echo history in a bad way.

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:36 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

On 5/25/2014 2:06 PM, Dustin Lacewell wrote:

25 years now, and I never made any effort to learn place
structures systematically.

This is a thoughtless retort.

It is a truthful one.

Yes but has no bearing on the original content. That's the point.

The suggestion that there is truly no objective sense of efficiency, rhyme or reason to a place structure is
unmoving.

There may be such a thing, but you have no more access to it than I do. And I have more interesting things to worry about.

No but the collective who is invited through whatever means of invitation are possible to create a consensus to access it. You're not listening.

The idea that an efficient place structure has anything to do
with memorizing gismu systematically doesn't follow.

The idea that I give a damn about either, also doesn't follow.

It was your argument.

For a language user, rather than a designer, why would you choose to
memorize a gismu (place structure) that follows a common pattern but
which never actually comes up in your conversation, over a useful
brivla where the place structure matters?

Another retort that doesn't connect with the original statement. In fact
this retort makes zero sense whatsoever. Why would anyone pick a gismu

that follows a common pattern but never comes up in your conversation?

Back in the day, I picked some 1300 gismu that had never come up in my conversation, because no one at that time spoke Lojban. A large chunk of those words were gismu in TLI Loglan, and their initial place structures were more or less the same that JCB used, except where we had a good reason to change. But JCB's gismu and place structure choice were often quite arbitrary, too.

Efficiency was never a priority.

Turns out this actually matters for lojban's proliferation.

This is just not a thought-out reply.

You expect me to spend more time thinking about this stuff than I already have?

You're not even trying.

You are right.

To suggest that there is no meaningful way to semantically categorize the gismu

I suggest no such thing. There are lots of ways, but how meaningful they are is a subjective question.

As a way to partition the work of a gimste revision, it becomes objective in how well it helps us partition the work of a gimste revision. You're having trouble maintaining the ability to keep the content of what you're responding to in mind.

for the utility of helping us
partition the work, one has to wonder what your actual intention in this
reply is.

Ridicule?

Sure, but you do a bad job when your retort completely misses the content of what you're replying to. Ridicule is only effective if it touches on some embarrassing truth. But you made a comment with no bearing to what you replied in trying to do so. Relax.

Furthermore, the process is democratic

Most of the Lojbanic world isn't involved in your process and won't be.

Most of the lojbanic world has never been involved its management and never will be. What is your point? Democracy insofar as people care about the event and its outcome. This is a practical reality, not some identified weakness in our action that is useful to your as a retort.

and so those associations are completely open to discussion.

Most people have no interest in such a discussion.

Exactly, this is explains what your immediately preceding comment lacks effect.

No.

First of all, lujvo don't change, since they mean what are
defined to mean.

Who decides what they are defined to mean?

At this point, either the person who uses one, or the person who enters it into jbovlaste or some other word collection.

You mean the "database" which you de-legitimize literally in the next comment?

In reality, the meaning of lujvo is not and cannot be prescribed.

In reality. Sure, if you say so. Except that we have a dictionary

I have never seen a published Lojban dictionary. If you refer to jbovlaste, it isn't a dictionary, but rather a data base, and I don't believe its collection has any official status.

where
explicit lujvo place structures are created mindfully and voted on
democratically.

I have never been aware of, nor involved in, any such vote. I suspect that this is true for most of the community.

It hasn't happened yet...?

Or perhaps start using the place you've been skipping - you know:
allowing the language to structure the way you think about things.
The language was after all originally designed to test the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

This actually made me chuckle out loud. You're not even trying to create
strong replies

Correct. selpa'i is hardly worth such an effort, even if I had the time.

that aim at the content to which you are replying. Use
places that are not relevant to the speech, just because they come
earlier in the place structure? What are you even *talking about* Bob?

Maybe we don't speak the same language.

You don't get to avoid having the fact that your comments completely miss the content of what you're replying to with stuff like this. The statement I pointed out made no sense whatsoever.

Your "semantic groupings" sound very much like your personal natural
language conventions. I rather suspect that a native speaker of a
language quite unlike yours would consider different "semantic
groupings" more important than yours, and perhaps will find places
useful that you prefer to skip, because in their native language,
different assumptions about the world have shaped the meaning of words.

Bob, we're not making natlang arguments

Then you aren't talking about language. Lojban will never be recognized by real linguists as being a real language, if it doesn't have certain traits that they define as necessary.

Maybe you don't care. Your choice.

Again, what are you even talking about? You accused of not being able to semantically categorizing the gismu, as if we meant 'for good' rather than as a temporary guide to help us process the gimste revision by accusing us of having natural language bias which would make any semantic categorization useless and subjective as if that matters in the context we're using it.

How does Lojban being recognized by linguists as a real language have anything to do with this already irrelevant subthread of the dialog!

Hubris on our part is one way to look at it. I'll say that hearing this
critique from someone who has throughout this entire dialog minimized
and insulted something he cannot even really perceive, being so far
removed from the life of the daily lojbanist and who cannot even speak a
dialect of lojban understandable by anyone having learned the language
in the last 5 years is certainly not going to evoke the any feeling of
legitimate and genuine criticism in us.

.u'inai .ionai

.ionaidai je'a

What an interesting demonstration is all that one can really think, as
we know who we are,

You may know, but the rest of us don't.

Later you will accuse me of speaking for others. Ironic.

To see you attempt this coloring while all the while
knowing that the very audience you speak to is mostly supportive

Evidence is lacking.

There's evidence in this thread and the previous one.

in *your* opinion consistent, and in *your* opinion easy to learn.
Of course you have no actual basis for that opinion, only some
untested assumptions about what sorts of things make learning
easier, and place structures more consistent.

This is where you truly show that you have no idea what's going on
beneath you. You believe that we are simply tinkerers

Yes. You talk like all the tinkerers before you.

We both agree work is needed you just disagree with what. This puts on the same level as far as this goes. Its useless speech.

But the truth is, the IRC community

You are you. You are not the IRC community. You speak only for yourself.

No actually, I'm very connected to the IRC community and all who care to participate in this conversation are in a channel specifically for discussing the events here. I do most of the messaging because I'm willing to. I'm constantly in contact with everyone, like I said, cares to be involved in those discussions.

is one of the most active communities Lojban has

Yet no one is ever there most of the times I log in.

(I'm not saying that no one uses IRC; I see a long list of bots logged in, but people don't respond to what I say, so I don't bother very often.

No one buys the "selpa'i and his rag tag IRC community is just a small
ignorant rebel group looking to destroy the language argument. Ask some
of the people around you.

selpa'i also is not "the IRC community" and does not have any authority to speak for them.

He's there too. Engaged in conversations about this thread and the movement and everything. You're just saying stuff at this point.

and they *won't* have to relearn anything.

Of course they will. You think you will be the last person to come
along and argue for a new improved gismu list? This comes up every
few years. And if we ever said "yes" to a single one, we surrender
all moral authority to oppose the next dozen attempts.

We're not coming up with anything.

Good. Then no one has to bother with you.

Again not replying to the content of the thing you're replying to. I'm saying, we're not 'coming up' with a new gismu list. We're executing a process where anyone can submit contributions and input of merit.

and making slight adjustments in gismu place
structures results in a big increase in pleasantness of use.
This may
not be the case for you, but it is for some.

And why should your personal aesthetics preferences count more than
mine?

Continuing to ignore that we're not deciding anything and asking anyone who wishes to to contribute.

The process is open for anyone to make arguments for or against the
proposed changes of others or their own.

There is no process.

You don't get to change reality just by saying things. If you're interested as to what the process is you can just ask.

That you are disagreeing with the goal of
having examples justifying the design of every place in the gimste is
unproductive

We haven't managed the much smaller goal of a set of examples for every cmavo. Why worry about a larger and less important goal?

I don't see any need to "justify the design of every place in the gimste". I can freely admit that many decisions were arbitrary, and further I assert that any "justification" is arbitrary. It simply doesn't matter, because gismu are not semantically privileged above lujvo, I rather doubt that you expect to justify every place of every lujvo.

As people who are involved with the direct selling of lojban to potential interested nintadni, we do.

Bob, we care. Justifying the sensibilities of the gismu is something we're asked to do by people considering the langague *all the time*.

But even ignoring that, if some people want a strongly prescribed
language and others do not, we have a fundamentally intractable
contradiction, and cannot please everyone. So we follow the
concepts under which the project was started and under which it has
survived 25 years

Lojban as language used by actual people, is inevitably a language that
changes naturally adapting to the needs of the users as those needs
arise and inspiration provides workable solutions. The idea that lojban
can ever be truly prescribed can in no way ever be enforced or otherwise
implemented.

Sounds like what I argued in response to Robin in the discussion cited by selpa'i.

I guess you don't really agree with selpa'i

I can assure you that selpa'i agrees with the motion of updating the record, prescription, description, or whatever, that we provide to new people and our selves as the codification of the reflection of modern usage is up to date.

Any prescription is only useful as a reflection of usage.

Then it is really a *description*, not a prescription. People can use descriptions prescriptively, but that doesn't make them prescriptions.

Who cares?

In the context of actually having some LLG support this is ironic.

Your support is not in evidence.

You must assume everyone in the audience is blind.

I fully respect people who use the language on IRC, for doing so. But they are still not above other Lojbanists who never have done so.

Hence why we are on this mailing list and elsewhere.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/h6yQDGV5lQw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.