From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Oct 04 12:02:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 4 Oct 2002 19:02:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 92880 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2002 19:02:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Oct 2002 19:02:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2002 19:02:57 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17xXmJ-00036h-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:06:23 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xXli-00036O-00; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:05:46 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-2.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.102]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xXlZ-00036E-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:05:37 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-190.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.190]) by mailbox-2.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA8E1C1B2 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:01:25 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 20:03:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021004093058.03208d80@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1905 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lojbab: > >Invent Yourself: > > >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! > > > >Ok, but what is the link between that decision and the relevance of > >their proposals? > > The argument is that someone who does not really know the language fluently > cannot really understand the impact of their proposals, and indeed may be > proposing something that is already built into the language. Some of And's > cmavo proposals have turned out to be things that are already in the > language (though they may take a couple of words to say what he would like > to say in one word, the capability is at least already in the language). Some examples of this are to be found on the wiki under Obsolete Proposed Experimental Cmavo. I see no harm in proposing an experimental cmavo that turns out to duplicate something already in the language. We learn something from this, and the proposal can be labelled obsolete. The notion that the fact that "the capability is at least already in the language" renders cmavo proposals obsolete is fallacious, as explained under Criteria for Evaluating Experimental Cmavo on the wiki. Virtually any cmavo, existing or otherwise, can be got rid of without rendering anything inexpressible. The function of cmavo is almost entirely to make things easier to say -- to add concision and flexibility -- and this is the motive for pretty much all experimental cmavo proposals. > >Besides, this is highly subjective topic: I remenber > >And writing he was more interested with ingeneering than fluency > >and yet his recent postings in Lojban show nice lojban usage. > > And has certainly grown %^) > > If you read his postings of 5 or more years ago, however, you will find > that he was posting without that mastery of usage, and he left an > impression that he is still living down. I don't have anything remotely approaching mastery of usage. My usage of the past, though it contained grammatical errors, was more saliently characterized for being perversely difficult, in that I deliberately tried to exploit the possibilities allowed by the grammar, rather than staying within the much narrower bounds of conventions of usage. Nor am I aware of ever having had a reputation as a more than usually incompetent user, or of having had a reputation that I am still living down. It would surprise me to find that I am living down a reputation, since not much has changed in my attitude or my practise (modulo effects of the baseline). > >In a sense, everything is "natural" and any user has a "prescription power" > >on its language, consciously or not. > > Yes. But should NON-users have a prescriptive power through their > analysis, as opposed to their usage? I think Yes. It should be irrelevant whether the prescriber is a user. Naturalists should ignore all prescription. Others should evaluate prescriptions on their intrinsic merits. --And.