Subject: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was:

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 16:17:32 -0400

At 05:32 PM 10/5/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>Lojbab:
> > Finally and most importantly for one key Lojbanic purpose,
>
>Remind us what purpose it is, and why it is important?

Use of Lojban for linguistic research (which requires that Lojban have 
enough properties of a natural language that any research findings are 
deemed "interesting" to linguists)

> > linguists respect such usage-based norms and evolution and do not
> > much respect prescriptivism.
>
>The sort of prescriptivism contemned by linguists is not what
>you call 'prescriptivism', namely language design.

When I first started work on Loglan/Lojban, artificial languages were 
condemned for three reasons
1) lack of native speakers (we can't beat that entirely, but fluent 
speakers cover many of the bases)
2) constant fiddling in search of the perfect set of rules for the language 
(this is what I think of as prescriptivism in conlangs), rather than 
actually using it
3) naive and excessive idealism both of the political/ideological sort and 
of the "Esperanto has 16 rules" variety, which is primarily evidenced by 
the 600 message threads on which language is "better" whenever conlangs get 
discussed on sci.lang. Any claim that a language is "better" or "simpler" 
usually has naivete or ideology behind it.

> > So long as prescribers have significant
> > clout over the language, we will have trouble gaining respect as a
> > language (and community) worthy of serious linguistic investigation.
> > Rather, we will be classed with the hoards of conlangs that never
> > stopped prescribing until they drove their prospective users away or
> > forced splintering from those who would not accept the prescription.
>
>Which linguists have you been talking to, or which linguists have
>given you this impression?

Mostly those on sci.lang. A couple at conferences (which were so long ago 
that I don't remember names).

>Why, and under what circumstances, do you think linguists would be
>interested in Lojban?

I wrote an essay on this which is on the website and may have been 
incorporated in the level 0 book (why Lojban is scientifically interesting).

>Speaking as a linguist, I find it hard to
>see how Naturalist Lojban would be of more than sociolinguistic
>or cultural-linguistic interest.

Nick's recently published paper on Lojban reflexives seems to be about 
linguistics and not culture.

>Although Engineered languages have not hitherto been of interest to
>linguistics (largely because they never existed, and because their
>very possibility has not occurred to linguists), I think they could
>be of considerable interest if they are any good.

Depends on what you define as "engineered". Esperanto is, to some extent.

>Current Minimalist
>(Chomskyan) theory is founded on the postulate that language is
>fundamentally "perfect" -- that underlyingly, language works in
>the optimal way, in a way that conscious design could not improve
>upon.

I don't see that. It rejects conscious design because such inherently 
cannot use the unconscious and innate language function of the brain.

>This postulate is not informed by any serious investigation
>of what perfection is,

"Perfection" to a Chomskyan is meaningless, or at best is "whatever the 
human brain actually does".

>because there is no history of people
>trying to think how the fundamentals of natural language could be
>improved upon. So in principle, intellectually rigorous engelanging
>has a role to play in defining Perfection, the limits of perfectibility,
>and the relation of natural language to these.

Perfectibility per 2) above is one of those things that linguists seem 
decidedly uninterested in. If there is a perfect language, then a natlang 
that is closer to that perfection is a "better language" and that 
contradicts the fundamental assumption of modern linguistics which is 
hyperegalitarianism among languages.

>Also, recent work
>on language evolution has just begun to investigate how natural
>language could evolve through normal selectional processes as a
>solution to a given design problem. Engelangers could in principle
>be ahead of the game here, in their understanding of the design
>problem and the range of possible solutions. (Andruc, our erstwhile
>Lojban colleague, is currently doing a PhD with two of the best
>people in this area, btw.)

I'm not catching the name reference.

>My (in this instance, comparatively privileged to some slight
>degree) opinions, then, are:
>
>1. Lojban should not feel the need to make itself of interest to
>linguists, though it should welcome any interest that linguists do
>take.

Thus rejecting the original JCB purpose for the language of linguistic 
research.

>3. Engineered Lojban as part of a larger program of 'engelangology'
>could in principle be of interest to linguists as advancing
>linguistics's central research goals, but in practise it is unlikely
>to happen, because of the paucity of competent people motivated
>to pursue engelanging for its own sake.

The goal in this area is to develop a new approach to, or branch of 
linguistics. Your concept of engelanging sounds theoretical. JCB's vision 
which I am committed to working at, is one of experimental linguistics.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org