Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 19:27:04 -0400

At 04:46 PM 10/6/02 +0100, And wrote:
>Lojbab:
> > 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)
>
>But why is it important,

We're getting circular. Because it is a key Lojbanic purpose, the main 
reason why the Loglan Project was started.

> > 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.
>
>(1) is an irrelevance. If you're interested in a language with native
>speakers, you don't look to an invented language.

Precisely. We need to overcome this prejudice by showing them that a 
language without native speakers can still be linguistically 
interesting. On the other hand, this takes LOTS of usage - Esperanto 
levels or greater.

>(2) is an objection raised by learners.

It is also one that is raised by linguists who aren't much interested in 
the "search for the ideal language" that is usually at the heart of the 
fiddling.

> > Mostly those on sci.lang. A couple at conferences (which were so long ago
> > that I don't remember names).
>
>I may be wrong, but I suspect that these linguists are people who
>have had the generosity of spirit to take the trouble to explain to
>you why they and linguists in general are not interested in Lojban
>or invented lgs in general, but that they are not people who have
>said "yes, I or other linguists would be keen to do research on
>Lojban, if only it changed in the following ways...".

Correct. I have to work on eliminating the negatives, and THEN I'll worry 
about the positives. If we never get out of negative interest territory, 
there is no sense worrying about the positives.

> > Nick's recently published paper on Lojban reflexives seems to be about
> > linguistics and not culture.
>
>It's published in a journal devoted to artificial languages (and it
>seems to be financed by the hypothecated bequest of a nonlinguist
>crank). Okay, yes, it's true that Nick himself found interest in
>the subject, but we already knew that.

Ivan has mentioned Lojban in a paper also (but only as a footnote, IIRC), 
and Nick earlier discussed Lojban in a paper in the machine translation arena.

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