Subject: Re: logical language and usage deciding

From: Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 23:37:53 -0600 (MDT)

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> 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.

It certainly affects my motivation to care about the arguments.

Why pay attention to something that resembles esoterica (even to someone
interested in a smallish constructed language!), goes on interminably, and
will just come up again in a couple of months, anyways?

> 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.

You lose the top tier sooner or later, either through death (.uu dzejbo),
or mere attrition.

What is important is to make sure that there is a middle tier to become
the new top.

And a bottom tier to become the new middle.

And interested beginners to become the new bottom.

> 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?

There appear to be parties whose only goal is endless discussion. Does the
number of people listening really matter to them? (Just as long, I
suppose, as there are enough people listening that one of them will argue
back.)

> (I'm thinking of the eruptions of pure usage in nuzban and the CVS site
> and all-Lojban web pages,

.ui

> as contrasted with the wiki which is more of a debate site.)

.aunai
.i'anaise'i .u'u .uinai

oh well. at least its a debate with a bit of a record.

> 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.

It certainly seems as though it would be more productive to try and lead
portions of the community more interested in leadership. (I feel as though
the lower of the aforementioned tiers would be distinctly more
interested, fwiw.)

- Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose