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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 17:32:37 +0100

Lojbab:
> >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.

I cannot see any sane way of considering Lojban to currently be ba'o coming 
into being. But that does not mean that what you call 'prescription'
(let alone what really is prescription) is necessary. Natural languages
-- pidgins -- come into being without 'prescription' or prescription.

> 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), 

As Lionel has pointed out, the evidence of jboske discussions is that 
the incompleteness lies in the mapping between form and meaning, not
only at the word level but equally at the bridi or sentence level.

> >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.

I and hopefully everyone else will hopefully henceforth take the initiative
to move technical discussions to Jboske, without waiting for someone to
ask.

> 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.

I'm not sure how much of a priority it is. There was a time 12-18 months
ago when I felt there was a crying need for it. Now it would merely be
helpful, rather than the preserver of sanity it would have been 12-18 
months ago.

> 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".

As I have since suggested in another message, a better way to go,
I think, would be to put statements of particular positions and
proposals on wiki pages initially under a Contentious Grammatical
Issues heading, and then subsequently, if agreement is reached, 
under a Resolved Grammatical Issues heading. 

--And.