Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:33:07 -0400

At 07:43 PM 8/20/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>#If a cabal of prominent Lojbanists* decides tomorrow to use an x2 for {ka}
>#in their writings, as recently independently suggested here,
>#
>#(a) is their Lojban wrong? (I am speaking with respect to the
>#'descriptivist' stance, though I guess what I'm really asking is LLG
>#policy.)
>
>I don't think the 'descriptivist/prescriptivist' dichotomy makes sense for
>invented languages. But I do think {se ka} would go against LLG
>policy, and that anyone who respects that policy (i.e. almost
>everyone but me and, much less obstreporously, Jorge) ought to
>use an experimental cmavo instead of se ka.

Funny, but I would have said that anyone who feels so strongly that the 
policy is wrong should just go ahead and use seka. After all, to the 
uninitiated, se ka at least clearly has something to do with ka and will 
parse correctly (if not gloss), whereas ka'uu'uu or whatever offers no clue 
as to what it means or what its grammar is. The worst that can be said of 
seka under the current language definition is that it has an unspecified 
meaning; it is not technically a violation of anything, any more than "xe 
blanu" would be.

And if usage bows to the new form, then it might eventually be recognized 
when the baseline freeze is evaluated.

In any event, I would rather see it used than talked about.

(Jorge will consider this a prime triple flip, I am sure %^).

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