Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:31:55 +0100

>>> Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]> 10/03/02 12:10pm >>>
#>New cmavos, new usage of old ones, even new gismus
#>are just the sign that lojban is living like any other natlang.
#
#If it happens by prescription (and most of the jboske discussion is 
#inherently prescriptive), then it is NOT like a natlang.  

As I've said to you before, I can't make any sense of the descriptive/prescriptive
dichotomy when it is applied to an invented language that is still in the process
of coming into being. So while I agree that Lojban is not like a natlang, it
follows, pe'i, that the descriptive/prescriptive distinction is largely vacuous.

#> > 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.
#
#Lojban tolerates the existence of many kinds of Lojbanist, but the 
#existence of multiple language prescriptions is not so easily 
#tolerated. The fear is that jboske will inherently lead to multiple and 
#contradictory prescriptions. It is only by managing to label the jboske 
#discussions "inconsequential" that many people will consider Lojban as 
#being "done" and therefore worth spending the time to learn.

This is an unhealthy state of affairs. To have a pluralism of ideologies
in the community is not a bad thing, but the situation you describe is
a tiresomely perennial source of conflict and occasional acrimony.

So the current situation is that those with the fear of jboske have to
continue to feel threatened by it, while the practitioners of jboske
have to put up with regular irruptions from people inveighing against 
it. Is there really no way we can manage ourselves better than this?

--And.