From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Oct 27 14:25:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 27 Oct 2000 21:25:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 29651 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2000 21:25:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Oct 2000 21:25:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2000 21:25:05 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (209-8-89-134.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.134]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9RLP3n91851 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:25:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001027171228.00c427b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:29:02 -0400 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re re sis-boom be: literalism In-Reply-To: <61.86357de.272b06d1@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 12:26 PM 10/27/2000 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >lojbab: ><> >This is technically correct; no one has the power to forbid anything and, >most especially, Lojban Central does not and has not, by and large, exercised >even the appearance of such power. But practically, some people do, by what >they say and how they say it, cast a chill over certain kinds of >considerations. I seriously doubt it. Jorge has shown great willingness to disagree with (and ignore when he does so) my pronouncements, and I likewise with his, so we are somewhat neutralized. And Rosta often disagrees with both of us. Cowan makes few pronouncements in this arena, so they have not been tested. Nick might have enormous normative clout, if he were active and pronouncing on such matters, but he isn't. Helsem has been noted for stretching whatever rules are applicable at the moment. In short, the people who use the language the most generally are not followers of anyone else (which may be why they are using the language). Normative statements might have import to people learning the language, but I observe that new learners do not internalize pronouncements of others all that consistently, and when people start using the language, they go their own way to a considerable extent. The proof of this is in how often we have had to rehash old arguments that are za'o za'o morsi xirma se darxi. >Their licenses to speak authoritatively vary, but this does >not affect their effect -- nor are these licenses checked with any regularity >by the bootstrappers behind them. A "no" or a "malglico" or even an "I >suggest instead" from one of this groups amounts to a death sentence for >whatever is being considered, Maybe, but only that specific usage at that time for that person, and not even necessarily then, since we have gotten past the stage of posting multiple revisions of whatever gets written after rounds of reviews by others. People write based on their perceptions of the language at the moment, and only if misunderstood are they likely to change their style. >even without an explanation and certainly >without a careful examination. There is no rule that compels this, of >course, but so far there has also been no serious effort to combat it. I >suspect that the wielders of this kind of power are themselves often unaware >that they have it and would be (have been, I notice) shocked at these >accusations. I've been as likely as anyone to make such pronouncements. It hasn't seemed to change that much. My normative influence is mostly with new people who have not started doing much on their own with the language. Once they start, they find their own voice and my pronouncements have little effect. >On the other hand, they have not modified their approach to >issues and are not likely to unless called to account. Consider this a call >to justify attacks on (and support of, for that matter) new words in terms of >effectiveness, not merely conformity to some rule or other, nor possibility >to be used in another way, nor possibility of finding another form, etc. >(None of these are ireelevant, obviously, but none is decisive either). The only way to judge "effectiveness" is to see whether communication occurred. IT has been a while since we've done a "phone game", and there are a lot more people capable of participating these days. Maybe someone should start a new edition. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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