Subject: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:06:28 -0400

At 06:04 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > I think that there is little point in bothering to come
> > up with short forms before we see that people are using the long versions
> > for something.
>
>This is idiotic. It is already abundantly clear that given the choice of
>(a) saying exactly what one means however longwinded the current resources
>of Lojban make it, or (b) saying approximately what one means, but saying
>it succinctly and in accord with the style biases built in to the language,
>99% of people choose (b).

The point is that, unless we have some (a) usages, we have no evidence that 
anyone even WANTS to say "(a)" as evidence to justify the short forms.

The short forms we did put in the language were justified based on natlang 
usages. We don't have nearly enough Lojban usage especially of the sort of 
obscurities being referred to, to justify adorning the language with more 
baroquenesses in order to handle the once in a blue moon when someone would 
wish to use them.

Every rule in the language has to be taught and learned in order to be used 
and useful. The language is already straining at the limits of what is 
easy to teach, and we don't even have usage examples on which to base 
teaching of these new ideas, merely the idea that they might be useful.

At best, they would be in the back chapters of the most advanced textbook 
anyway.

>And this is hardly surprising, since these 99% of people have as their
>main goal successful *communication* (i.e. being understood), with a
>style as elegant as possible.

Elegant in Lojban need not be defined as "brief".

> And since, as we know full well from natlangs,
>it is not necessary to be longwindedly precise (or even, it is necesssary to
>not be longwindedly precise), in order to be understood, longwinded things
>will see no usage because nobody wants to say it badly enough to put up with
>the longwindedness.

Alternatively, no one will want to say it badly enough to learn yet another 
cmavo and grammar construction as an exception to the norm.

>Usage is like water: rather than flowing north, south, east or west in the
>direction of what the speaker wants to express, it flows downhill in the
>direction of the biases built in to the language. For usage to to be driven
>primarily by what people want to express, the biases would have to be removed.

Look at the patterns of abbreviation, and we see that long words exist and 
then people using them a lot come up with short forms. Only rarely does 
someone come up with an abbreviation and then coin a long form that 
corresponds to it that has never actually been used before the short form.

But as you know, I have little interest in (but
>not little goodwill for) Lojban usage (or in parole in general) but much
>interest in Lojban design (and in langue in general), and hence I am
>interested in cataloguing hypothetical improvements to the design.

I know, and we have every interest in getting people to *stop* thinking in 
terms of Lojban design and hypothetical improvements to the design. Thus 
we are by nature forced to be in opposition. I am obliged to oppose you on 
principle while being fully committed to your right to do so despite by 
opposition.

Isn't my job fun?

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