in defense of my JL14 article

[lojbab (Bob LeChevalier)]

Nick has implied several criticisms of my JL14 article, only once clearly
stating an objection - to my misuse of smuni.

My intent in the writing was NOT to make a pronouncement on Kuwait, or the
international situation.  In fact, my first thoughts leading to the writing
took place before the iraqi invasion.  As stated in the essay, I was debating
to myself two things - to try to explain to people why I still considered
Jim Brown a "heroic" figure, one of admiration, while I am constantly harping
on him politically and in regard to the language design, and secondarily, to
try to define the English word "hero".  The latter most likely will be defined
in terms of English/American cultural metaphors (since I don't know Greek nor
do I think most English speakers know the etymological development anyway.)
Though of course ideally it should be defined in some universal culture-free
sense, I think itr primarily a psychological concept that is inexorably rooted
in culture.  In any case, as I tried this Lojban translation of a difficult
English concept (which may or may not have failed - THIS is a legitimate
subject of contention), I was also commenting on the difficulties of
translation of ANY word with a range of not-necessarily closely related
meanings into Lojban.

With 6 months to think about the topic, and at least a dozen essays by others
assimilated before I set down to write (This was a popular topic in the american press, even though I THOUGHT OF IT FIRST .oizo'o) I could easily have written
several pages.  Nora urged me to keep it short , partly because JL14 was so delayed, partly because until Nick here has commented, I had no proof that anyone
could even read what I was writing.  In trying to be short, I obviously lost
the important thread of my discussion, and caused at least Nick to focus on the
wrong subtopic.  In short, it was stylistically poor writing as an essay.  I'll
accept that as a criticism.

But I will not accept an assertion that I must avoid certain topics in writing.
I'd rather be controversial - this gives people a reason to struggle throughh
the text I write rather than pass it by.  (Hmm maybe a little baudy sex next
time to get people to read it???)  

I thank Nick for the compliment that I seem to be so authortative on the l
language that anything I say is inherently prescriptive.  But I wish it were
not so.  and it shouldn't be so.  I'm only slightly more fluent than the rest
of you, and this only because I've spent the hours with LogFlash that I've tried
to get others to spend.  I'm at the point where I cannot much improve MY Lojban
unless I USE the language in my most natural style, which will inherently not
be as good as my English writing style.  But I need the practice or I will NOT
be capable of finishing the textbook because I won;t be able to write the
examples of more complex features of the langauge needed in the later parts,
and have them be "interesting and natural" enough to deserve people's study.

So I write in Lojban in JL, and I DO NOT translate.  For if I translate, the 
material IS more overtly pedagogical - i.e. people have a right to take
what I say more authoratitvely, since an English translation is more within
my capability than a Lojban natural expression.  Only people skilled enough
to occassionally accept one of my mistakes are going to read my text, anyway.
(And any mistakes I make are semantic, since I DO check my writings in the 
parser, as well as have Nora check them for obvious errors.)

So I will make errors in my essays, and I WANT nick and anyone else to call
me on them - but preferably with specifics.  Because in no other way can I
or anyone else learn a language than to make mistakes and be corrected by others who may think more clearly on the point in question when they read it.

In short - no apologies for what I write.

-lojbab