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

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:39:55 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:

> #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.

The difference is Usage! We call it definitely prescription when the
authors are not users of the language. Except for Jorge, the jboskeists
stubbornly refuse to drive the cars they enjoy tinkering with. If there is
a distinction or a split, it is singularly the fault of those people and
not the jboka'e, who always welcome more speakers, especially ones so
educated and capable.

I also think that proposed conventions and cmavo are received more
smoothly from people who have encountered troubles during their own usage.

Although the process of jboske may require high-level concepts, the
resolutions (singular or multiple) are consistently never reduced to
comprehensibility for the unwashed slobs. This convinces naljboskepre that
jboske is a fruitless waste of time. Can you blame them?

-- 
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn