Subject: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:49:27 -0400

At 11:24 PM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > There is no formal method of proposing additions, innovations, or
> > augmentations to the language, and Lojban Central is unalterably 
> opposed to
> > even setting up a system for doing so during the baseline period, because
> > the mere existence of such a system renders one major purpose of the
> > baseline meaningless (the two major purposes being long term stability in
> > order to develop a large speaker population and, the one that is
> > threatened, the transfer of the language change process from one of formal
> > control and direction to one of natural language change by evolution among
> > speakers of the language).
> >
> > Proposals for changes are by their nature prescriptions. We want no
> > prescriptions other than the official language, until the baseline period
> > ends. Ideally, at that point, there will be no need for English language
> > discussion of changes.
>
>I'm not sure (a) whether you're saying that Lojban Central wants no proposals
>for change and does not want to set up a system for registering changes,

Yes.

>or (b) whether Lojban Central (and by implication LLG in all likelihood) wants
>to prevent the wider Lojban community from collectively maintaining an
>unofficial register of proposals for change

Yes.

> (which I construe as proposals
>for a different loglan, not as proposals to oblige others to alter their
>linguistic behaviour).

If one wants proposals for a different loglan, I have no problems with this 
provided that they are clearly labelled as such. You will note that I 
never said a word about your own logical conlang efforts. If you want 
ideas for developing a son-of-Lojban (of a somewhat different name to avoid 
confusion), that is a different sort of thing (still not something I 
relish, but something I can officially ignore).

> If (a) then I know, but it doesn't change my interest
>in loglan design. If (b), then you need to be more explicit about what
>prohibitions someone friendly to LLG must obey.

There is nothing that you must "obey"; the fact that you have been invited 
to be a voting member means that you have been officially recognized as 
friendly to LLG, and I am neither a dictator or even a 
dictator-wannabe. Thus I will not tell you what to do, but rather indicate 
my concerns and their strength and let your friendly-to-LLG conscience be 
your guide. %^)

Others in the community are of course welcome to chime in with their 
opinions as well. They don't have my problem of trying to lead a project 
while not repeating the mistakes of Schleyer, Zamenhof, or Brown.

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