[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 10/09/2014 22:07:

On 9/10/2014 9:16 AM, And Rosta wrote:

        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.


It is arguable whether any given conlang failed for any particular
reason, but everything I have read indicates that people move on
either because a conlang had changed, or because they wanted it to
change (and many conlangs (especially the Euroclones) that failed
are little more than modifications to prior conlangs that never
attracted more than a small fraction of the predecessor.


Either you're using 'conlang' in an opaque or nonstandard sense or you don't know much about conlangs. You seem to think that if a conlang doesn't attract users then it has failed. If a poem doesn't attract many readers, has it failed?


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 that deviation from that ranking quenched their interest?


The "deviation" is clearly the lack of a trustworthy standard that
they can learn from.


Gleki's Russians' overriding requirement was, he reports, codification.


You seem to have a strange notion of what language destruction is. You
seem to think that a language exists if and only if it has speakers in
our world.


That is certainly a requirement according to linguists.


Shouldn't I, a linguist, who knows linguistics, be telling you, who isn't a linguist, and who doesn't know linguistics, what is a requirement?

So no, it is not a requirement "accordding to linguists", if "linguists" means something more than a particular linguist you had a brief ill-understood email exchange with back in the 80s.


I accept that that's not a nonsensical view, tho I do think it's utterly wrong,


When you convince the academic linguistics community, let me know.


When you either have genuinely learnt anything about the academic linguistics community or are prepared to be educated by a member of it, let me know, and we can continue the discussion. AFAIK, I'm the member of the academic linguistics community that knows most about Lojban -- a fact that my professional peers would probably take to show me to be a waster of time -- and probably the member of the Lojban community that knows most about the academic linguistics community.

--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.