Subject: Re: [lojban] A Lojban CLL?

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:39:31 -0400

At 10:00 PM 9/16/02 +0200, Lionel Vidal wrote:
>Robert LeChevalier:
> > That is not quite what I said. There are a few people with the skill to
> > express it, but probably not without a lot of work, and a somewhat larger
> > number who could understand it. But the ones who could understand it would
> > be those who already know the grammar, which means that they already
> > understand what the material in trying to tell them.
>
>Not really: it is not because I can read and understand something that I
>already know that thing. Otherwise any teaching reference work would
>be plain useless. More specifically, the level of language used in a grammar
>work could be simple enough to be understood and yet could explain the use
>and subtilities of a much higher level of that language: that is in a way
>the very purpose of any grammar book.

Ah. While I think we could translate CLL into its equivalent in Lojban, I 
don't think we have anywhere near the expertise needed to do what you are 
asking, which is to describe language features, using generally simpler 
language that the grammar which you are explaining. Indeed, I suspect that 
the grammar would involve sentences far more complicated than anything that 
appears in the examples of the book.

> > An unskilled reader,
> > on the other hand, would need to learn the material in order to become
> > skilled enough to understand the material. Thus the people most interested
> > in reading such a book are the ones who can't read it, and the ones who can
> > read it would have the least reason to actually do so.
>
>But I have never thought that a lojban CLL would be for beginners! The need
>for a reference work comes later, when your mastering of the language allow
>you to more or less communicate and you want to, say, access some literature
>work or improve your skill.

OK. At this point, I think that most people use the book to learn. When I 
use the book for reference, I want a very quick look up to answer a simple 
question, and I want to think as little as possible in order to get the 
information. Of course I may not be like most Lojbanists.

> > We don't need good reference grammars of English in order to understand
> > English. Why should we need one for Lojban, unless Lojban is in some way
> > inferior?
>
>Of course you need some! There are plenty in libraries :-) Again these will
>not be needed for basic communication, but very soon after, if you really
>want proficiency and understanding of the corpus of your language.

I have never read a formal grammar of English, though I have a couple in my 
"read someday" list. Anmericans of course study their language in 
textbooks in school, but that is primarily teaching the most basic rules, 
and tends to focus more on things like punctuation. Very few Americans, 
even the most sophisticated of readers and writers, would imagine a need to 
read a scholarly explication of the language. Some writers use a "style 
guide" that shows the particular conventions used in certain kinds of writing.

> > This is not to say that the result would be WORSE than English, it just
> > likely would not be better than English, and it would be more difficult to
> > read for more people because fewer people are able to read Lojban.
>
>This seems to imply that you expect mostly English speaking people to
>be interested in lojban, which may be true now, but as far as I recall is
>something you wanted to be changed in another discussion.

I want it to be changed, but I'm also aware that much of the educated world 
has a reading knowledge of English (regardless of whether they can write it 
well), and would be able to read and English text easier than Lojban. I 
hope you're right and that there is a significant group of people who would 
learn Lojban but would not learn English.

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