Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Some ideas/questions (long)

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 22:13:11 -0400

[email-masked]:
> I take the above to mean that he wants to fix those exceptions in the 
> language
>that occur to 1) minimize the amount of needed gismu by turning unnecessary
>gismu into lujvo (such as the the gismu for 'mother' being replaced by the
>lujvo for 'woman type-of parent') 2) Making the place structures of similar
>words match (for instance the words for 'angry' and 'sad') and 3) enable all
>gismu to have easily discerned rafsi.

Each of these has been proposed dozens of times in the last 15 years, and 
in fact proposals based on each were implemented in the first half dozen 
years of the language. But it is way too late to even consider any further 
efforts of this sort. I attempted to retune the rafsi list to more 
effectively match usage in 1993, and the community reluctantly approved it 
with lots of dissent under the proviso of "never again".

> As far as the rafsi is concerned, I would think it would make sense to give
>all gismu two rafsi, one of type CCV or CVV, and the other of type CVC, in
>order to make it possible to combine any rafsi in any order (those gismu with
>--C only rafsi cannot be at the end of a gismu, for instance) Also, it would
>good to have a standard to make these two rafsi:
>
>CVCCV:
>
>CvCcV + CVCcv | CVcCv
>
>CCVCV:
>
>CcVcV + cCVCv | CcVCv
>
>So, gismu's two rafsi would be:
>
>gsu + gis | gim (probably 'gis')

gsu is not a permitted letter combination in Lojban.

The current list was selected using, I believe

CVCCV
C1V1C2C3V2

CVC: C1V1C2 | C1V1C3
CVV: C1V1V2
CCV: C2C3V2 and in a couple cases where a CCV was felt to be really 
important C1C2V1

CCVCV
C1C2V1C3V2

CVC: C1V1C3 | C2V1C3
CVV: C1V1V2 | C2V1V2
CCV: C1C2V1

Where two words could use the same rafsi, we chose the word that was used 
in the most proposed lujvo needing that kind of rafsi (the set of proposed 
lujvo was not carefully weeded and in fact was as inclusive as possible of 
people's ideas, and usage at that point was relatively minimal; most of 
these proposals never made it into any wordlist).

> That is what I offering to help write a proposal on, and I think that if the
>work was done on it, that it at least have a chance in commitee,

It would have no chance in committee, since there are two people in this 
household alone that would veto it sight unseen. It is not what we are 
looking for from the byfy. Nick as byfy chair has said that he also 
has little interest in change proposals that would make existing language 
usage invalid. The committee exists to define what has not been defined, 
resolve conflicts that have been identified, perhaps recognize significant 
usage that conflicts with the existing baselined prescription, and in very 
limited areas to consider "fixing what is broken", with "broken" generally 
being defined in terms of the fundamental purposes or design criteria of 
the language (none of which include "making a better language"). The 
latter is the lowest priority and it remains to be seen if any proposals at 
all will be accepted on those terms; if they are, they will likely only be 
accepted from people who have demonstrated deep knowledge of the language 
as it is through extensive usage over time - Jorge and Nick being among the 
few who qualify. A newcomer who cannot fairly fluently use the language 
that is, is not likely to be competent to identify something as being "broken".

>though i am
>not confident of it being accepted, merely because of the stubbornness of 
>those
>who've ben in the Lojban community a long time. ('It's always been like this,
>and it works, why change it?'

That is only part of the argument. The other parts include "Change drives 
people away; people do not like to relearn stuff they have already 
learned. Make no changes that are not necessary", and "Every change to the 
language makes some prior written text invalid. People will not learn a 
language if there is nothing to read in it, and people will not write in 
the language if a change will make their writing unintelligible next week, 
next month or next year." There is also the weaker argument of avoiding 
change that is unnecessary, out of respect for language inventor James 
Cooke Brown; unnecessary change weakens the claim that this is the same 
language that he envisioned back in 1954 (we're coming up on the half 
century mark next year, and I'd love to say that the prescription of the 
language is complete before then).

But you are correct that I am stubborn on such matters, and I am not the 
only one. And in this arena alone do I assert any the benefit of any 
respect given to "founder privilege".

>(The answer is 'Because this works better.'

That argument could be made indefinitely, and it begs a question that 
Lojban asks more effectively:
ma xagmau ma ma ma ma ...

>Of course that's debatable, but we won't know unless the work on the 
>proposal is done.))

If you want to debate it, do so in Lojban. Start by answering the above 
question. I'm sure you will get response if your Lojban is even minimally 
understandable.

There are far better ways to spend Lojban time. These kinds of proposals, 
and even debating these kinds of proposals are the sort of activity that 
leads to countless constructed language concepts and projects with almost 
none of them having any speakers other than the person who concocted them 
(if even they speak it). There is a community of people who are seeking an 
ever "better" language. This isn't it, and this community overlaps that 
one only minimally.

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

---

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 22:13:11 -0400

CVCCV
C1V1C2C3V2

CVC: C1V1C2 | C1V1C3
CVV: C1V1V2

CCVCV
C1C2V1C3V2

CVC: C1V1C3 | C2V1C3
CVV: C1V1V2 | C2V1V2
CCV: C1C2V1

lojbab