Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction &c, Part 2

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:47:53 -0400

At 03:46 AM 8/19/01 -0700, Nick Nicholas wrote:
>7. Sense and Responsibility
>7a. "Why Lojban?"
>
>In the attitude to Lojban I will conventionally characterise as
>'naturalistic', it is objected that 'hardliner' insistence on rigour
>(particularly semantic rigour) places unwelcome constraints on creativity.

That is not my complaint, though it seems true. Rather, it inhibits USAGE 
and exploration and thus slows down learning of the language by people who 
seem to think they are being told that they will be jumped all over for any 
violation of a rule that they don't completely understand.

Skilled Lojbanists are welcome to seek the rigorous ideal. But most of us 
are still learning and a focus on rigor is out of place so long as 
communication succeeds.

The fact that you, Nick, feel that Lojban is "difficult" as compared to, 
say, Klingon, suggests that the goal of rigor is interfering with language 
acquisition.

>There are several "hardliner" responses to this. One, which was And's, is
>"Why Lojban?" To elaborate, I rephrase it as "Why not Klingon?"
>
>I know Klingon is a red flag to many here (including xod, to whom this is
>primarily directed.) Allow me to explain (and, admittedly, to be
>indifferent as to whether it's a red flag or not):
>
>If all that is sought is that the language be alien from English, Lojban
>certainly provides that. But it is not the only language that provides it.
>Klingon does too. So does Chinese. And Tok Pisin.

Lojban has several goals. Those other languages do not cater to all of 
Lojban's goals.

>Therefore, the hardliner (well, a hardliner. OK, me) argues, if you want to
>play with Lojban, you may be free to be creative, but you have to accept
>certain constraints on your creativity. Those constraints are to maintain
>Lojban identifiable as Lojban. If you don't like the constraints Lojban
>imposes, go use Klingon instead.

And those constraints at this point are limited to the syntax and the 
lexicon, which are all that are baselined. The semantics of the language 
are not baselined, and we have expressly chosen NOT to do so any more than 
necessary.

>In fact, of course, noone is so die-hard a naturalist that they completely
>reject the Lojbanic constraints. (Although I must admit to some hardliner
>disquiet when I see Helsem laying down the law on what is or isn't
>{lobykai}.) I am not therefore saying to xod or to anyone else "Go use
>Klingon instead"; Heaven forbid! The issue is where the line is drawn. The
>hardliner wants more constraints than the naturalist. But it should be
>uncontroversial that a "Lojbanist of good faith" is already limited by the
>constraints of Lojban grammaticality and *grosso modo* semantics.

The Lojbanist of good faith is limited by the constraints of what others 
are able and *willing* to understand. If one wishes to communicate with an 
audience of hardliners, then one cannot be as sloppy as when one is having 
a casual conversation with a naturalist.

>Whether compromise or mutually agreed boundaries on what is and isn't
>Lojbanically acceptable can be negotiated, I cannot tell. I am much less
>optimistic this week about it than I was last month. Once again, this is
>now a community issue.

It has always been a community issue, and I see no reason why the situation 
is different now than it was when you wrote your Wallops or various people 
entered the ckafybarja.

>8. Proper lujvo
>
>xod, I *think*, believes it unreasonable that lujvo should be demanded to
>be intelligible at first sight/a priori. John, I *think*, agrees, citing
>the case of camcinki, and would be much happier with a fu'ivla for Web.
>Very well; but I have to point out that this is not the conclusion we
>arrived at in Klingon.
>
>(And, by the by, since people are saying certain lujvo are better than
>others, they are certainly using *some* criteria to evaluate them, and they
>are not resigning themselves to the impossibility of such evaluation.)

I support Helsem. Certain lujvo are better in certain circumstances but 
others may be better in other circumstances, and the criteria may be 
individual. Why must there be one correct answer for all contexts?

>9. Hardlinism.
>
>Hardlinism is indeed ultimately signing up for an impossible task, as xod
>characterised it. I can only answer that so is the whole of Lojban. I am
>profoundly sceptical that human beings can, *in their conversational use of
>Lojban*, really speak in LALR(1) grammar, and always remember not to
>include {la} in Lojban names, and always remember to pause after vocatives.
>That it is impossible does not mean we don't have a lot to learn from the
>valiant attempt to do it anyway.

Once we acquire some sort of idiomatic skill, all of this impossibility 
will be no problem, in my opinion. One doesn't need to think LALR(1) in 
order to remember that le broda ku joi le brode requires that the ku not be 
elided. You once jokingly started writing it as kujoi out of irritation 
that the formal language required something you as a human did not. To 
which I reply, "fine". If we develop the habit of including a few extra 
terminators when things are a little confusing, we will be less likely to 
violate the grammatical rules.

As for la in names, this is a bootstrapping issue. People in natural 
languages don't usually have to make up or translate new names on the 
fly. We stress it in teaching because it gets people to learn and to think 
about Lojban phonology.

Learning when to pause seems to be part of natural language prosody. Why 
should it be unnatural to have prosodic rules in Lojban?

>2,3mai: Like I said, a semantic theory is ultimately unachievable, but that
>does not make further formalisation of semantics not worthwhile or
>intractable

But should that formalization be primarily descriptive or prescriptive? In 
no other language, including so far as I know other conlangs, is there a 
prescriptive semantics theory or formalization. I'm not sure it is is even 
possible.

>I am clearly approaching Lojban quite differently to what I used to; as I
>said in my monologue in Lojban above, I've learned some things that made me
>change my mind, but I also think I've changed as a person.

Yet you would deny to the rest of us the chance to evolve with the language.

>It is possible that I am being petty in a lot of this. It is hard for me to
>be humble, harder for me to admit I'm wrong, and hardest of all, I've now
>learned, to realise that I may still think I'm right, but that doesn't mean
>I'm going to have my way.

Join the club %^) I learned this lesson when I lost on gumri 10 years ago.

>That said, I also think I'm thinking about Lojban quite differently to how
>many others do. I obviously have some reevaluating to do.
>
>So in translating the following passage from the conclusion to General
>Makriyannis' _Memoirs_ --- a passage which never fails to move me to tears
>--- I address this more to myself than to anyone else. As a reminder that
>it is not all about me.

It is about all of us who use the language. We all thank you for your 
years of contribution and hope you will be with us for many more (even when 
we disagree with you %^).

>So, one last self-indulgence (which probably violated all my hardlinisms
>anyway),

.i'e

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