From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Oct 03 06:31:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 13:31:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 11174 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 13:31:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 13:31:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 13:31:37 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:59:12 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:32:14 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:31:55 +0100 To: lojbab , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Robert LeChevalier 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=20 #inherently prescriptive), then it is NOT like a natlang.=20=20 As I've said to you before, I can't make any sense of the descriptive/presc= riptive dichotomy when it is applied to an invented language that is still in the p= rocess of coming into being. So while I agree that Lojban is not like a natlang, i= t follows, pe'i, that the descriptive/prescriptive distinction is largely vac= uous. #> > 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=20 #existence of multiple language prescriptions is not so easily=20 #tolerated. The fear is that jboske will inherently lead to multiple and=20 #contradictory prescriptions. It is only by managing to label the jboske=20 #discussions "inconsequential" that many people will consider Lojban as=20 #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=20 it. Is there really no way we can manage ourselves better than this? --And.