From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 18 10:28:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 17:28:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 16006 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 17:28:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 17:28:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 17:28:31 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:06:13 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:36:35 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:36:10 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Lojbab: #On one extreme we have Michael Helsem, whose poetic efforts at Lojban set = a=20 #very non-hardline extreme of usage. But that extreme clearly is NOT=20 #driving usage because few users emulate Michael. More of them try to=20 #emulate xod, or Jorge, or Nick, who each have their own styles that are=20 #more or less logically rigorous. At the other extreme is And, who has not= =20 #for the most part mirrored Michael by presenting us with a usage that=20 #reflects his image of the language. There are several reasons why I write so little Lojban, but there is one re= ason in particular why I don't try to influence others' usage through my own. Th= is reason is that there is no mechanism for abbreviation, for creating more=20 concise locutions that do not increase vagueness. There is no 'Zipf valve' -- no mechanism for shortening locutions whose length is not appropriately proportional to their frequency.=20 My usage would obviously be aiming for clarity and precision, but it would = be=20 intolerably cumbersome and syllableful -- too cumbersome and syllableful fo= r=20 anybody to want to emulate it or for me to find much appeal in it. I appreciate the way Jorge seeks to find the stylistically optimal balance between elegance and precision, within the established constraints of Lojban grammar, but I myself can't bring myself to accept the necessary compromises. --And.