From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 03 16:27:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 3 Jun 2001 23:27:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 45034 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2001 23:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2001 23:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2001 23:27:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.27.1672a108 (3926) for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <27.1672a108.284c21bf@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:26:55 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Rabbity Sand-Laugher To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_27.1672a108.284c21bf_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_27.1672a108.284c21bf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, if my publicly announcing that -- and why -- I am offended by what others are doing offends those others we come out about even, leaving only the dead authors without recourse. So let us leave them alone for a while, starting with Dodo. The last time this was suggested, it was pointed out that "See Spot Run" s a remarkably complex sentence in Lojban (and so, presumably in English, too -- suitable perhaps for learning to read a language you know, but not good for learning a language). Long stretches of most novels are much simpler and more appropriate for beginners and journeymen (which, by the way, everyone says they are -- whether out of modesty or accurate assessment I am not sure, but I take them at their own evaluation unless it is proven otherwise. And so far, overevaluation seems to outweigh under.) I am not interested in translating Oz or anything else; I am interested in seein good translations done and that requires chosing translatable texts. Oz is one, suggested simply for someone with an urge to do kiddylit. If no one wants to do it (though we have at least one sufferer from Baumania amongst us), then it won't get done and we will be little the worse for that. Being interested in something may be a necessary condition for doing it, but it for doing but it is not sufficient. There is also the question of whether you CAN do it in any meaningful sense. I have been told by people whose opinion I respect that I cannot write my way out of a wet paper bag with a Bowie knife and -- since their opinion is backed by some pretty hard evidence -- so I don't do that sort of thing. Other have other views of their own talents and so some of them do do that sort of thing, and, if their views are correct, more power to them. And if they are not, then they should be shunted off to where their talents lie --and Alice, for example, calls for a variety talents that do not often go together, whereas Oz calls for fewer and more commonly cohabiting. I couldn't agree more. But producing a pile of crap because of poor planning and poor choices seems to me a bad way to get the language off its duff. It may be that it will lead the next round of interested people to say "Hey, I can do better than that" -- and they may even be right. But it may equally or more likely lead them to say "This is a dumb language; look at the crap in it!." They are doing it in the interest, they say, of doing something for Lojban. It seems appropriate, then, to suggest that they use that time to good effect. The fact that I am also emotionally involved in one particularly easily abused piece may color my remarks somewhat, but does not change their general relevance. As far as leaving them alone, I have never noticed that anyone took anything I said as interferring with what they did and I have no sense that they will this time. But I would hope that it would get some people to think through their translating a bit further: Is this text something that can have roughly the same value in Lojban as in its original language? Can I bring that out? Am I willing to do the work required to do it or at least make a decent start on which others can build? --part1_27.1672a108.284c21bf_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <Wow. That was so senselessly egotistical and just plain rude that it took
my breath away.

If I said something so amazingly insulting to a large group of people, I'd
be making sure that I had my asbestos long johns pulled up over my head.>

Well, if my publicly announcing that -- and why -- I am offended by what
others are doing offends those others we come out about even, leaving only
the dead authors without recourse. So let us leave them alone for a while,
starting with Dodo.

<Well, if the people participating have only a passing understanding of
Lojban, as you claim above, then what does that leave them to work with,
"See Spot Run!"?>
The last time this was suggested, it was pointed out that "See Spot Run" s a
remarkably complex sentence in Lojban (and so, presumably in English, too --
suitable perhaps for learning to read a language you know, but not good for
learning a language). Long stretches of most novels are much simpler and
more appropriate for beginners and journeymen (which, by the way, everyone
says they are -- whether out of modesty or accurate assessment I am not
sure, but I take them at their own evaluation unless it is proven otherwise.
And so far, overevaluation seems to outweigh under.)

<If you're so interested in having those translated, why don't _you_ do
them? The people working on Alice are doing so because Alice interests
them. If Oz doesn't interest them, then trying to get them to translate it
will be futile, as nothing will happen.>
I am not interested in translating Oz or anything else; I am interested in
seein good translations done and that requires chosing translatable texts.
Oz is one, suggested
simply for someone with an urge to do kiddylit. If no one wants to do it
(though we have at least one sufferer from Baumania amongst us), then it
won't get done and we will be little the worse for that. Being interested in
something may be a necessary condition for doing it, but it for doing but it
is not sufficient. There is also the question of whether you CAN do it in any
meaningful sense. I have been told by people whose opinion I respect that I
cannot write my way out of a wet paper bag with a Bowie knife and -- since
their opinion is backed by some pretty hard evidence -- so I don't do that
sort of thing. Other have other views of their own talents and so some of
them do do that sort of thing, and, if their views are correct, more power to
them. And if they are not, then they should be shunted off to where their
talents lie --and Alice, for example, calls for a variety talents that do not
often go together, whereas Oz calls for fewer and more commonly cohabiting.

<And something does need to happen if Lojban is to grow. Sitting on it and
using it merely as something to argue about will not get the language to
go anywhere.>

I couldn't agree more. But producing a pile of crap because of poor planning
and poor choices seems to me a bad way to get the language off its duff. It
may be that it will lead the next round of interested people to say "Hey, I
can do better than that" -- and they may even be right. But it may equally
or more likely lead them to say "This
is a dumb language; look at the crap in it!."

<Whining about what other people ought to be doing with their free time is
disgusting. They're interested in using Lojban as more than something to
argue over, at least have the decency to leave them alone.>

They are doing it in the interest, they say, of doing something for Lojban.
It seems appropriate, then, to suggest that they use that time to good
effect. The fact that I am also emotionally involved in one particularly
easily abused piece may color my remarks somewhat, but does not change their
general relevance. As far as leaving them alone, I have never noticed that
anyone took anything I said as interferring with what they did and I have no
sense that they will this time. But I would hope that it would get some
people to think through their translating a bit further: Is this text
something that can have roughly the same value in Lojban as in its original
language?
Can I bring that out? Am I willing to do the work required to do it or at
least make a decent start on which others can build?

--part1_27.1672a108.284c21bf_boundary--