From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Sep 18 00:00:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 07:00:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 58191 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 02:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 02:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 02:35:46 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic106.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.106]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8I2ZX581345 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:35:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010917222123.00dbeea0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:32:57 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: logical language and usage deciding In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:06 AM 9/17/01 -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: >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. There is absolutely NOTHING in the above that I disagree with. On the other hand, it says better than I have, most of what I've been trying to say, including what I mean by "let usage decide". Nora also agrees. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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