From xod@thestonecutters.net Thu Oct 03 08:40:38 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 15:40:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 50947 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 15:40:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 15:40:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 15:40:37 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17x88q-0002aa-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:43:56 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17x88E-0002aC-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:43:18 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17x88B-0002a3-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:43:15 -0700 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g93Fdts95450 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:39:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:39:55 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021003111449.Q95321-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1867 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple 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