Subject: Re: logical language and usage deciding (was: RE: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd)

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:47:22 -0400

At 04:49 PM 9/15/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>lojbab:
> > Someone who is extremely concerned about the logical aspects
> > will tend to avoid those things that are poorly defined in terms of
> > logic. Others with less concern will probably try them, and after some
> > considerable time we might have enough usage that we'll clearly know how
> > people are using the bloody thing, and then be able to formalize
> > it.
>
>To the extremely concerned about the logical aspects, this is not a
>consolation but rather an abomination, for natlang experience shows
>us that that which Usage Decides will tend to be ridden with idiosyncrasy
>and ambiguity.

Natlangs have never had a logical language to play with.

Lojban as a linguistics experiment requires that at some point we see how 
real people use the language without prescription-dogging them.

>Letting Usage Decide is anathema to a logical language

No. Only to certain logical language proponents.

>and that is why seekers after a logical language must turn to a
>invented language rather than to a natural language, which is wholly
>decided by usage.

Tell that to the French Academy.

>This is not to say that preferences evidenced in usage should not be
>taken into consideration when legislating, but it's a bit like deciding
>which side of the road to drive on: if you want a safe road system
>then the driving side has to be legislated, though in making the
>initial decision the legislators could base it on the general trends
>of prelegislation driving.

The bottom line is that at some point the legislating has to stop. That is 
when the 5 year baseline should start, so we can have 5 uninterrupted years 
of people learning something that everyone agrees will remain 
stable. Right now these debates make ME feel the language is unstable, and 
is requiring significant unlearning and relearning from someone who doesn't 
learn languages easily in the first place. One of my basic principles when 
I got started on Lojban was to try to stop the changes that made people 
feel that the language wasn't worth putting effort into learning because it 
continually required relearning. It seems that the non-Central leaders of 
the community don't value this principle much anymore, or at least don't 
feel that it will seriously affect peoples' motivation to learn.

>As I see it, a lojbanist has essentially two options. One option is to
>use the language in a way guided only by existing usage, by personal
>inclination and by what is baselined. The other option is to persevere
>with the methods that created the initial 25% of the language so as
>to create the remaining (ge ka'e gi na ca'a) 75% of the language.

I'm feeling like my methods are being strongly repudiated rather than 
persevered in, based on the arguments I am getting from people like Nick, 
who I strongly respect.

>The
>options can't be reconciled, and neither should prevail over the
>other in the entire community, and each party should accept the
>activities of the other. As far as I can see, the only way in which
>the respective activities of the two parties interfere with each
>other is in potentially confusing newcomers, and this can be remedied
>by acknowledging the two parties in introductory information about
>the lojbo culture and by, if necessary, exiling the hardliners to a
>separate and, possibly, unofficial forum.

There is indeed the conflict between officialness and unofficialness. I'd 
buy your approach if it did not seem like it would be trying to exile the 
top tier of skilled and active Lojbanists. The dilemma I'm faced with as 
leader is whether it is even possible for me to lead in a certain direction 
when so many of the most active users seem so hostile to the direction I am 
trying to lead. On the other hand, your suggesting that the two approaches 
can successfully coexist is the biggest day-brightener I've had since LogFest.

The other problem I see, is that if all your hardlining is going to be 
worth something, it has to sooner or later cross the gap into the 
user-based community. If you prescribe and no one is listening, are you 
any better off than if you had let usage decide?

>But in choosing to Debate rather than to Use, the people making that
>choice are making a judgement about the relative importance of Debate
>and Use. Michael chooses 99% Use. I choose 99% debate. Nick and Jorge
>choose 50:50. But it's the individual's right to make their own choice.

Yep. And if the community chooses to debate rather than use, then a 
prediction made by Colin Fine years ago that this would be the ultimate 
fate, will have been proven right, even though until a couple months ago I 
was sure the trend was strongly the other way, and that usage of the 
language was finally overcoming the historical tendency in the Loglan 
community to debate more than use (I'm thinking of the eruptions of pure 
usage in nuzban and the CVS site and all-Lojban web pages, as contrasted 
with the wiki which is more of a debate site.)

> > Now maybe I should set my priorities differently. But if I try to spend
> > time using the language, then I won't know what you all are pontificating
> > about, and will thus not produce much interaction on the great issues of
> > the day, about which I would then remain ignorant.
>
>My advice, given your ideological position, is to not participate or
>keep up with the debates, and to read only the definitive records that
>we mean the Elephant to produce. The time saved can be spent either
>practising what you preach (i.e. in Use), or working on the dictionary
>(ideally concentrating on lujvo and gismu). That's my advice, at any
>rate.

It is advice I'm inclined to take, since it seems to agree with what Nick 
is suggesting. It doesn't fit well with my idea of a proper role of a 
leader, which requires me to stay in touch with all parts of the community 
I am trying to lead. But I'll have to get by that, since per everyone's 
comments, I'm not being productive and maybe not even succeeding in staying 
in touch.

> > >And who precisely do you think *is* being held back from writing Lojban
> > >masterpieces by grammatical quibbling? Me? And? pc? xod? maikyl.?
> > >xorxes?
> >
> > Everyone else who reads what the grandmasters of Lojban are writing about
> > and think that they have to understand it in order to use Lojban. You've
> > intimidated the beginners enough that they've split off a beginners 
> list now.
>
>And that's a positive outcome -- that beginners no longer need feel
>intimidated.

As long as it does not lead to a real split in the community, that should 
be fine.

> > >That's an utterly empty claim (unless, of course, you believe in
> > >quantity over quality.
> >
> > Actually I do. The reason why you can argue so self-assuredly about 
> Lojban
> > design concepts is those couple of dozen translation efforts you made 
> up to
> > 10 years ago.
>
>That hardly holds true for me! I argue with as much and as well- (or ill-)
>founded self-assurance as Nick and my usage is negligible (due mainly to
>its paucity).

On the other hand, your usage when you create examples, etc., and indeed 
the quality of your arguments, have changed markedly from the ancient days 
when you insisted on using h instead of apostrophe. I have little fear 
that if you actually tried to use the language, you would present a 
creditable text.

> > The reason Jorge is so good at the language is because he
> > uses it constantly.
>
>There's no way to settle this, of course, but I think it's mainly because
>he's uniquely gifted. The rest of us could use it ten times as much as
>Jorge yet not be a tenth as good.

Jorge certainly seems gifted, but he also seems to spend more time at using 
the language than I ever imagined anyone could or would.

> > Michael Helsem has produced gobs of Lojban, and the
> > quality of it has surely improved over the years, since people can answer
> > him without him translating it %^) Now all of you might be ashamed at 
> your
> > malglico (malspano?) writings from way back, but you wouldn't have your
> > ideas on what is right and wrong with the language unless you had done
> > them, and you wouldn't have the confidence to tell me I'm wrong (whether I
> > am or not) unless you had used the language far more than me.
>
>I am living proof that what you say is, if true at all, not true universally.

You need to look at the stuff you posted several years ago. You've 
improved much more than you recognize. John Cowan makes similar claims to 
you, about knowing the grammar but not the language, but at Logfest he also 
seemed to understand far more than he did a few years back.

> > Yours is the voice of experience, Nick. And the same for the other names
> > you mentioned. Give us 50 Lojbanists with that much experience, and some
> > of the more obscure corners of the language will have been explored 
> enough
> > that people will know where they want to go with them. Give us 500
> > Lojbanists who can speak the language as well as you and Jorge, and I 
> won't
> > need to care what people debate about, because the language will define
> > itself, with no textbook or baseline required.
>
>You'd make your point better if you could adduce people who speak the
>language as well as Nick and Jorge but don't engage in debates.

Goran, who Nick has identified as his superior in language skill but who 
never participated in any debates. he just started using the language, and 
using it and using it. (When he did so is about when Jorge started doing 
so as well). Colin Fine has rarely participated in debates, but when he 
does he has been right in my book, and he has also shown high proficiency 
given far less time spent on actually doing so.

> Otherwise,
>it could be argued that participating in debates is a necessary ingredient
>of being an expert user. (Of course, there's some circularity here,
>because usage that does not reflect the fruits of debates might perforce
>be considered nonexpert.)

I fear this, making me suspect that those who try to use without paying 
attention to the debates might end up speaking a different language.

Alternatively we may just be on the point of developing a second register 
in the language, in which case it is purely natural %^)

>But that's daft. To rudely exaggerate, your contributions to debate either
>indicate incomprehension or else declare that the debate is not worthwhile.
>This wastes your time in writing messages and other people's time in
>replying to them. Stick to your principles: ignore everything but usage,
>abdicate control by abstaining from debates,

I don't mind abdicating control (I don't think I've ever really been in 
control %^), as long as it is not seen as abdicating leadership. People 
still expect there to be a Lojban Central that can effectively speak for 
the community.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org