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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:42:00 +0100

An unusual message, this, from you, Lojbab, sounding rather
dejected and not at all combative!

#>>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]> 09/16/01 10:47pm >>>
#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.

That particular experiment does, yes. The experiment where seeing
what a balls-up ordinary human minds make of a logical language is in
itself a valuable outcome. (Not being ironic.)

It doesn't cancel out my point, though. It simply confirms the conflicting
goals of different sections of the community.

#>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.

People do. Tell it to the French Academy, that is.

#>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.

My understand was that the baseline began in 1997 with the publication
of the Book. Let me spell out how I see things working.

1. There is in force a guarantee that the official definition of the language
will not change (except in as much as the dictionary will have some sort
of official force?). This guarantee is not permanent, but the majority of
the community is almost certainly sure to continue to want no further
official changes.

2. A small but voluble section of the community cannot remain involved
in Lojban without debating design issues pertaining to areas in which the
current design is incomplete or broken, and striving to complete and mend
these areas.

3. In their usage, Lojbanists are free to ignore the fruits of those debates,
or they can let their usage be guided by them, or they can let their usage
be guided by others who heed the debates. Eventually usage will
decide which dialect emerges from the melting pot, but for as long as
the baseline is in force it will always remain the case that any usage that
is in accordance with the baseline is licit Lojban.

#>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.

This is probably so, because no member of LLG opposed the baseline
when it was instituted, and all its vocal opponents from that time except
me vanished into lurk mode. But this summer has seen an astonishing
transformation in the culture. Whether it's simply because a new and
changed Nick returned, or whether its because some critical mass was
achieved, I don't know. 

Anyway, nobody at all has been arguing for official changes to the 
baseline, so it seems to me that you can remain the guardian of the
baseline and of the programme for the organic growth of the language
without having to face opposition or conflict. The worst you have to face 
is that the language is too incomplete for any but the most basic of basickest
pedagogical materials to be written.

#>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 conflict between the activities of this tier and the course that LLG
pledged itself to c. 1987-1997 are generally recognized and sympathized
with, and I don't remember any potential exilees objecting to the notion
on the various occasions it was mooted. Anyway, these conflicts seem
to be resolving themselves as the community outgrows a single list, and
much of the technical discussion looks set to move to jboske (as the
Elephant list), unless plans have changed.

#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.  

I of course am delighted that you have failed to lead the community in
what I thought was the wrong direction. But there are now some hundreds
of Lojbanists without the time or inclination to make their voices heard,
and they need somebody to represent their interests, if Lojban is to be
more than a club for the few maniacs who manage to keep up with the
list. So maybe your role is not so much leader but president (not French
or US-style -- more Italian style), with a brief to attend to the interestsof the 
whole community and ensure that the constitution is upheld.

#On the other hand, your suggesting that the two approaches can 
#successfully coexist is the biggest day-brightener I've had since LogFest.

Good.

#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?

I think different people will give different answers. Nick and pc would
probably say that it does matter whether 'prescription' affects usage,
and that it will probably fail to, but that the effort is still worthwhile in
terms of a kind of morality of the intellect. Jorge would probably say
that his usage requires the hardlining, and his usage is all he will
judge his efforts by. And I would say that it doesn't matter whether
'presciption' affects usage, because the value is in the design 
itself and in the historically unique way that it is the product of 
50 years of collaboration among many many individuals.

#>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 
l#anguage 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.)

I think your impressions of two months ago will prove correct; even for those
who love to debate, debating whets the appetite to Use, rather as creating
recipes must whet the appetite to eat the food the recipe defines. This
applies even to me, though in my case there are also strong countervailing 
factors. Admittedly, given that time is finite, time spent debating is time
that can't be spent using, but I don't believe that the equation is that crude.

(In my case, at the start of the summer I planned to spend a few hours
doing some bible translation -- just a couple of dozen verses -- and that 
was to be the limit of my Lojban activity. In the end I didn't have time to
do it, but Lojban dominated my whole summer, and the language moved
along enormously during that time.)

#> > 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.

But if the community grows, then however it develops there will necessarily
come a point where there is too much going on for you to keep track of it
all. That's a sign of health.

#> > >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.

Possibly -- compliment accepted. No doubt my interminable talking about
Lojban has endowed me with a moderate capacity to use it, perhaps 
very roughly on a par with John.

#> > 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.  

We've all improved. We understand the language much better than in the
old days. I think in the past quite a lot of my usage was intended to test
the language to destruction.

#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.

I don't even know the grammar! But I accept your point.

#> > 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.

Okay, though if they were here now I suspect they would be chiming in
on debates.

#> 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.

Not if everybody talks to each other. (When talking Lojban, I mean.)

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

This is probably already incipient. For example, there are those Lojbanists
who wouldn't be caught dead using a zo'u, and equally there are those
who wouldn't be caught dead not using it when logic demands it.

#>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 %^), 

you have more than you think, and far more than anybody else. At least
over matters official.

#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.

Quite so. In particular for the large majority that tends not to speak
for itself. As opposed to the small minority that speaks for itself
with glorious incessance.

--And.