Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day...

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:17:42 -0400

At 09:32 PM 8/10/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > It seems to me that the way consensus is set is the way that Jorge has
> > threatened: by using the language the way you think it should be used, and
> > leaving lojbab behind if he doesn't establish any alternatives in
> > usage. Consensus in English language discussion during the baseline 
> period
> > is meaningless if it doesn't see usage.
>
>In practise, I think this may be untrue. Take, for example, the LE/LO
>distinction. We achieved a consensus through discussion, not usage,
>and usage -- inadvertently rather than deliberately -- flouts the
>consensus without the consensus being challenged. Instead, the usage
>is seen as at fault. OTOH, Jorge uses [lo'e} nonstandardly, but has
>not won anyone over to it. The most you can say about the power of
>usage is that it entrenches bad habits...
>
>So, the way consensus is set is by the sort of debates Jorge, pc, Xod,
>me, et al. have been having of late.

"Consensus" that is not followed by usage matching that consensus is 
meaningless. It'll just be forgotten only to have the issue reappear the 
next time someone asks the question. Even the creation of "records" does 
not stop the so-called consensus issues from cropping up again and again, 
and I don't think the wiki will change this - at least the Lojban List 
archives are searchable now.

I agree that Jorge's (nonstandard) usage alone does not change the status 
quo. On the other hand if Jorge and xod and pc all were to use a word in a 
certain way, that would likely outweigh all the "consensus" arguments that 
those same people would have in English on the list.

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