Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: logical language and usage deciding

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:32:57 -0400

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 [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