From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Oct 05 12:15:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 5 Oct 2002 19:15:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 95371 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2002 19:15:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Oct 2002 19:15:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Oct 2002 19:15:24 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17xuS1-0007Zs-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:18:57 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xuQs-0007Y2-00; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:17:46 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-14.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xuQj-0007XP-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:17:37 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-115.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.115]) by mailbox-14.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E029B4824A; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:13:32 +0200 (DST) To: "John Cowan" Cc: Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:15:11 +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: <200210051623.MAA02035@mail2.reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1927 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 John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > > Lojban may eventually start to evolve in the way natlangs do, but that > > > can only occur in a genuine way when there is a large body of > > > quasi-native speakers, and this cannot happen if people start tinkering > > > with the language. > > > > Are there any current examples of actual tinkerings that present > > an actual impediment to the emergence of a large body of quasi- > > native speakers? > > It is the fact of tinkering, rather than any specific example thereof, > that constitutes a disincentive to learning; without learning, there > can be no such large body of speakers. People do not want to learn > things that will become massively obsolete soon. To complete the chain of reasoning, add "People believe that the fact of tinkering will make it probable to an unacceptably high degree that things will become massively obsolete soon, and that the absence of tinkering will make it probable to an acceptably high degree that things will not become massively obsolete soon". That the point Lojbab usually makes, but I'm not sure if that's what Robin meant. > > Technically, the BNF 'grammar' is more like a grammaticality-checker > > than a true grammar. That is, it will tell you whether or not a > > string is well-formed Lojban, but it won't tell you what it means. > > Well, this is an equivoque on "grammar". Computer types use the word > "grammar" in precisely this sense. Yes, I know that. By "technically" I meant, "in the context of its application to a language"; ordinarily if you are describing a language and talk about the 'grammar', you would be expected to mean what 'grammar' usually means when used to describe language. For historical reasons, Lojban uses 'grammar' in the computer rather than linguistic sense: hence my "technically". It's not a cheap quibble, because the BNF is sometimes viewed as though it were more substantive than a grammaticality checker. --And.