From xod@thestonecutters.net Thu Oct 03 13:45:00 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 20:45:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 25482 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 20:45:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 20:45:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 20:45:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17xCtQ-00045u-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:48:20 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xCsq-00045V-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:47:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xCsm-00045M-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:47:40 -0700 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g93KiJm96902 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:44:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:44:19 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism In-Reply-To: <000e01c26b1d$8a080440$3ac90950@ftiq2awxk6> Message-ID: <20021003163618.C95321-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1879 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, Lionel Vidal wrote: > 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? There are students who are using the language at a low level, and there are people who have publically stated their refusal to learn the language towards fluency. They decide themselves, not me! > 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. I hear you. But the more contributions come from outside the using body, the more it is engineered, and the less it is evolving "naturally". Of course, when a language is barely in existence, and nobody yet uses it, only one of those options is possible. But we're long past that. -- 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