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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:08:02 -0400

At 02:31 PM 10/3/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> >>> 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.

Well, that is the question: is it "still coming into being"? If it is, 
then prescription is necessary. If the language has seen sufficient usage 
that we are ba'o "coming into being", then prescription is not necessary 
though it is arguably desirable by some.

While the Board is debating the question right now, my (abbreviated) 
opinion is that the grammar, as defined in CLL has long been considered 
complete. The lexicon is not considered complete, most especially because 
of a lack of a good cmavo list with understandable definitions (which does 
not mean "full" definitions, but does mean more than exists today), and a 
lack of a lujvo list, which I believe should include some minimum number of 
dikyjvo/jvajvo and some number of words that are not, to show that both are 
permitted, and that we can and have settled on place structures for 
them. The number of such lujvo needed are small - Nick, I believe has 
suggested 500.

As such, I have no problem with jboske debates on the meaning of the 
cmavo. At the point where we publish a cmavo list, whatever we say should 
constrain (but not necessarily eliminate) the jboske debate. I expect that 
where there is considerable difference over how a cmavo should be used, we 
can come up with a wording that describes the cmavo meaning but which gives 
some room for the variations in usage, or if necessary, put forth a 
prescribed meaning but acknowledge variation in usage.

>#> > 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.

Maybe so, but it is indeed the state of affairs.

>To have a pluralism of ideologies in the community is not a bad thing,

Agreed.

>but the situation you describe is
>a tiresomely perennial source of conflict and occasional acrimony.

Yes. Therefore we should recognize it and deal with it in a way which 
acknowledges the validity of the various concerns and yet permits the 
different "ideologies" to exercise the language as they choose. I 
understand that Esperanto has multiple ideologies on certain aspects of the 
language, but that while they are apparently significant for the people who 
argue them enough that they bother to do so, the different ideologies are 
largely "inconsequential" to the learner.

Nick has suggested to me that there will likely come to exist multiple 
dialects of Lojban, with a colloquial one and an academic one the obvious 
ones that are forming. The (at least) two dialects as they are developing 
share the same grammar, and the same lexicon (with some experimental 
cmavo), and the meanings of the words are compatible enough that 
communication between speakers of the two dialects occurs (and indeed many 
speakers use different dialects at different times); we can live with this.

>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?

Probably not on a single list, with the current volume of postings. It is 
the fact that jboske discussions become so voluminous, so arcane to the 
non-initiated, and so often inconclusive (or at least I haven't seen any 
"records" out of pc in recent months, so I have to assume it), that there 
are a lot of rather major Lojbanists who simply do not read the jboske 
stuff and therefore never know whether a conclusion has been reached; the 
learner Lojbanists simply are overwhelmed and perhaps scared off.

The beginners list was formed for the beginners, but it only rarely gets 
postings. The jboske list also rarely gets postings. To "manage 
ourselves" requires that people discussing a topic realize that it is 
getting too arcane for those not reading closely, and move it to the jboske 
list, or to repetitive in the way that beginners need repetition, in which 
case it might better go on the beginners list (but I can't recall such a 
thread in a long while).

In the absence of the Elephant, I think that the jboske debates are best 
conducted by creating a pseudo-elephant using the wiki. Perhaps Jay could 
create a template based on the Elephant example in the wiki, and an 
Elephant section of the wiki, and people wanting to debate jboske issues 
could start to fill in the template for each issue. When we have the 
Elephant done, such information can probably be transferred into the 
software without much work.

But what is really needed for the rest of us, is what pc was originally 
doing with his "records" - creating a short summary of what was debated and 
the conclusions that were reached, perhaps with an example. (pc's records 
at one point started to become contentious enough that they restarted the 
debate, which is I think when he stopped writing them, so records will only 
work for issues on which consensus has been achieved, or where there are 
clear options that can be described with the annotation of "agree to disagree".

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org