Subject: Re: logical language and usage deciding

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:06:28 -0700 (PDT)

*sigh*

I agree with And's message on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10745

I believe that And, pc, me, the Grand Poobah, whoever, have the absolute
right to debate what the logical, rigorous version of the language should look
like, and indeed, to make proposals based on that debate. A Lojban
community in which I don't have that right is a Lojban community I don't care
to be part of.

I believe that Lojbanists striving for a rigorous version of Lojban is a
good and noble thing, and a valid pursuit, given why many people are
involved with Lojban in the first place. If the outcome (as I've discussed
with xod, and as And has apparently independently concluded) is diglossia,
then that's OK; I doubt the two variants of the language will be that
massively different, and in Usage (there's that word again), there will
inevitably be a convergence, or a blurring, between the two anyway.

On the flipside, I recognise also that the debates get interminable,
repeated, rehashed, and unresolved. This is a known problem, and contrary
to what many may think, I think most of the debaters want this problem
solved. Hopefully it will be in time.

And yet I also agree with Lojbab. There's a saying from World Championship
Wrestling I'd like to adduce (because it's appropriate to the level of
kerfuffling, after all): Don't just sing it, bring it. If the logical
pontificating is to have any relevance to reality, if I personally want
Lojban to move in the direction of rigour, then it is my responsibility to
*use* Lojban in that fashion. The proof is in the pudding. The point of
Lojban for me, after all, is not just that there be a logical language
(if I want Predicate Logic, I know where to find it), but that there be a
human-*speakable* Predicate Logic.

To be explicit on the mailing list about things I've said on the Wiki:
there are things being proposed in Lojban which I intensely dislike. I
don't mean rafsi or attitudinals; I may think some aspects of them ill-thought
out, but I am not, and cannot, suggest they be uprooted from the language;
they are part of it, and I am committed to the stability of the language
(the recent exceptions to that commitment, I would like to think, prove
the rule.) I mean rather things mooted for introduction. I am against
type 4 fu'ivla; I am against experimental gismu. I have my reasons; I
won't bore you with them again --- see "fundamentalism" on the Wiki.

But I cannot stop people from using them. It will not work that way.
I've made my arguments, I've presented my case, but I cannot enforce it.
So if I don't like it, it's my responsibility to not just sing it, but to
bring it. It's my responsibility to use Lojban the way I think is right, and
offer my usage into the Arena. This goes with seljvajvo, ce'u, big-endian
dates, and anything else that has struck my fancy. If my example takes, I
win; if it doesn't, I lose. But saying what should be is not going to be
enough.

I recognise that if the issues of debate don't actually come up in usage,
where the two conflicting interpretations actually lead to
misunderstanding, then Jay is absolutely entitled not to care about the
debates. I think he's wrong, but the onus is not on him to accept it, but
on me to prove it --- again, by usage. If usage is not affected by
the debate issue du jour,
and you'll get the same Lojban output for the same Lojban input for either
interpretation, then that doesn't mean the issue is no longer interesting
--- but it does mean it's probably no longer interesting to most
Lojbanists. So let the logicians continue debating it in a cordoned-off
corner; and get on with your life.

If, on the other hand, it does matter, and there is a real potential
for misunderstanding, then the naturalist will have to
listen to the hardliner, because the hardliner has some pertinent
arguments, given the origins of the language. She doesn't have to obey
him, but she does have to listen. On
the other hand, the hardliner has to demonstrate feasibility by attempting
to use what she preaches: she has to adopt the naturalist's methodology.
If And won't do it, and if I think what And says on a particular issue is
right, then I have no problem doing it for him. (As soon as I'm able to
find out what he may or may not have said. :-)

A responsible Lojbanist is a Lojbanist who cares for the stability of the
language. Both naturalists and hardliners have demonstrated this
responsibility. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain cohesion in this
language, as it is for all conlangs. But I think we're still committed to
trying.

*shrug* Dunno if I've helped or harmed; whatever.

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing I REJECT {gumri}
[email-masked] (Lojban Wiki, Resurrected Gismu)