From nessus@free.fr Thu Oct 03 03:07:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 10:07:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 52570 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 10:07:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 10:07:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 10:07:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17x2w6-0001H0-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 03:10:26 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17x2vZ-0001Gb-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 03:09:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Oct 2002 03:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.25] helo=mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17x2vR-0001GL-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 03:09:45 -0700 Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760C250104965C for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:05:55 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.236.80) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D80120400C92484 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:05:55 +0200 Message-ID: <002d01c26ac6$381a1ee0$50ecf8c1@ftiq2awxk6> To: References: Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:17:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-archive-position: 1856 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Lionel Vidal" Reply-To: nessus@free.fr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf Jordan: > > Chapter one: > > ... > > You can learn the language described here with assurance that > > (unlike previous versions of Lojban and Loglan, as well as most > > other artificial languages) it will not be subject to further > > fiddling by language-meisters. > > ... > > > > If even the book's author disclaims that goal, as you claim he > > would, then this language is seriously fucked. I always wondered why it should be so. Why any language evolution should spoil it? I mean, most of the proposed changes (and these are very few anyway, as most of the time discussions deal more with interpretations) are minor in the sense they do not change the fondamental structure or flavor of lojban. New cmavos, new usage of old ones, even new gismus are just the sign that lojban is living like any other natlang. The chapter one disclaimer could have as well made a list of minor things that could changed: would that have hindered your lojban interest? The first time I've been in Australia, even after tuning my ears to the local english phonetic understanding :-), I still needed to ask my australian friends what they meant, because of specific local english usage. You may say that was because I am french, but my american fellows, although most of them were too proud to admit it, were often as lost as me! And I am sure that even if you include all the up-to-now proposed changes into lojban, that 'new' lojban will be much nearer to 'old' lojban than australian english is to BBC english, or texan english (another difficult one for us poor frenchies) :-) This kind of situation, very usual for non english natives, has never prevented anyone to learn english (ok, english is maybe a bad example as there are stronger reasons to learn it anyway, but I could have said the same for any other natlang, and also for esperanto). Note also that in natlangs, linguistic norms, being grammatical or lexical, have never prevented users to make their language evolve. Indeed it is a fundamental trend of human mind to polish and improve its tools for a better usage, and most people see languages as tools. That being said, I do find reference manuals useful, as they are invaluable as learning tools. > However, I don't > think that that goal would be disclaimed by all but a small (and > unfortunately loud) minority of "lojbanists". Though there are > certainly a few who would say they are in favor of that goal, but > act the opposite. > So thankfully the massive amount of fiddling which you are hilariously > referring to as "jboske" is more or less inconsequential. You seem to regret the existence of different kind of "lojbanists". But every one is free to have his own objectives when considering lojban. I guess you will not call me a "lojbanist", but that only shows that the semantic of "lojbanist" may have to evolve :-), or that new words may have to be coined. -- Lionel