Re: [lojban] the future of Lojban's leadership

2014-09-10 17:16 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

Gleki Arxokuna, On 10/09/2014 06:51:

2014-09-10 0:50 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:
In old usage, "le" was standardly not used in a baseline-compliant way; cf how "le nu", "le ka", "le du'u" used to be default in usage. In old and new usage (for new usage, I'm relying on Selpa'i's observation), logical scope of syntactic clausemates is generally ambiguous. How many people are going to want to preserve old ways that aren't baseline-compliant or are rampantly logically ambiguous?

The task is to adapt theory to facts, i.e. usage, not adapt reality
to facts provided this doesn't lead to syntactic ambiguity which is a
defining feature of lojban.

There are three forces that potentially shape and define what is to be deemed correct:

1. usage
2. official codification
3. logic (mapping between phonological and logical forms), consistency, regularity, unambiguity, integrity

& possibly a fourth:

4. unofficial consensus of opinion (or of influential opinion)

(4) is important for English, maybe not for Lojban.

All can conflict. Which trumps which? For me it's 3>2>1. For Bob I hope (because it's a position I can respect) it's 1>2>3. What do you think it is?

For me it's 2. codification > 3. logic > 4. consensus > 1. usage

although 4. defines 1. and partially 3.

At the time I ceased active involvement with Lojban I had come to the view that that the community was wedded to 1>2>3 or 2>1>3 with immutable 2, but now I see that there are currents of opinion -- much stronger than ever in my time -- unwilling to accept either of those. Surely the only foreseeable outcomes are that the ultraconservative camp withers or that there is schism.

More importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of
conlangs whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop
fiddling with the language design.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify these dozens if not hundreds of conlangs whose usage would have spread if people had stopped fiddling with the language design.

He won't. I can confirm his words. I've got a lot of people from
Russian group who immediately stopped learning Lojban when they
learnt that CLL was no longer valid.

Bob was talking about conlangs not conlangers.

Usage of conlangs depends on users i.e. conlanger (although i preferred to use "conlanger" for the term "inventor of conlang")

I suppose your Russian drop-outs must have been fervent devotees of {1|immutable2} > 3. What was it attracted them to Lojban in the first place, such deviation from that ranking quenched their interest?

There is CLL which is the reference grammar.

When someone says (and proves) that the refgram is no longer valid the language stops to exist.

This way Lojban loses one of its selling points: the most complete/described human language ever.

CLL is the first (and the best imo) book teaching Lojban.

What others offer instead of CLL? Nothing. Just waiting for Robin to do something instead of them.

That's why any changes to basic gismu, to common usage is a way to
the final destruction of the language as it happened to other
conlangs.

You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is.

Destruction is exactly when you ignore or invalidate one thing and not providing alternatives.

Those tinkerers (including xorlofiers back in 2003) threw CLL away and thus imo destroyed the original plan of a stable language and doomed the language to the fate of Loglan. Only the lack of the third alternative (a new loglang) prevented this community from complete dying.

You seem to think that a language exists if and only if it has speakers in our world. I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do think it's utterly wrong, but it's hard to have rational discussion if we use the same set of terms with such fundamentally different and incompatible senses.

The existence of speakers doesn't matter. If you have selling points you will get speakers.

The second selling point is monoparsing.

But they removed the first selling point.

For users of handheld devices, Gleki has made an android jbovlaste app -- it's excellent!

Huh?

There is a Google Play app maker called Vorgoron who made the app and gave it a description that says "Author - Gleki Arxokuna", which had misled me into thinking you were Vorgoron. Looking at Vorgoron's other apps, it seems likely that Vorgoron is Russian, so likely somebody you know.

Oh, I see. I just offered him to include a dictionary into their distributions. I don't even remember who is the original author of that dictionary.

--And.

--
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.