From nessus@free.fr Thu Oct 03 13:37:17 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 20:37:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 35843 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 20:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 20:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 20:32:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17xChI-000418-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:35:48 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xCgg-00040q-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:35:10 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out-3.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.233] helo=mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xCgX-00040b-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:35:02 -0700 Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760D7C010DD9BF; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:30:58 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (80.9.201.58) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D80120800D150A5; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:30:58 +0200 Message-ID: <000e01c26b1d$8a080440$3ac90950@ftiq2awxk6> To: , References: <20021003111449.Q95321-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:41:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-archive-position: 1878 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Lionel Vidal" Reply-To: nessus@free.fr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf Invent Yourself: > 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. IMO this is quite restrictive and unfair! How can you decide who is and who is not a user of the language? Are going to judge before hand the value of any proposal depending on the lojban amount and quality of postings? Is there any minimum lojban practical competence required before posting proposals, and how to define it? And then usage is only one of the criteria to judge the relevance of a "prescription" (I would like proposal as a better word), and in the case of lojban, except for a handle of people who can claim a minimum fluency, the less important one. Education, culture, general and linguistic knowledge, experience, etc. can produce the most and practically useful improvements to the language. To give you an example on a connected subject, most linguists specialised in some languages know them perfectly in their intimate mechanism and discuss relevently of the specific means used to convey meanings (which is kind of what jboske is all about), but are not users. Most of them are not even fluent in them. > 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? Of course not. Even if they the resolutions were crystal clear, they would still be perfectly right to see it as a waste of time. Just as the people who like tinkering or engeneering more than usage. Both kind of people are likely to meet different problems, but also to be able to help the other kind, by seeing the language from a different point of view. Just for the fun of it, another remote analogy is chess programming: the best chess programmers are very far from being very good players, and they seek advices and check the efficiency of their programming with the stronger players. But these very same stronger players could not design the machine that will eventually speak better chess and beat them :-) ok, that is very unfair. -- Lionel