la lojban zasni

["Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>>> We can imagine the impression
>>> this gives outsiders, when all we can tyalk about is what changes we are
>>> thinking about.
>>

At this point, who cares? Lets get some of these things worked out before
we have several thousand speakers. In my opinion, lojban is *not* just a
toy. I believe it is very important; I do not waste my time on trivia, and
I am spending considerable time learning & arguing about lojban. I believe
that lojban offers much that esperanto does not, and that it will
eventually be widely used. The decisions made now are likely to affect many
people. lojbab is the de facto leader of the lojban endeavor and he needs
to carefully consider how he will use his authority to guide the birth and
development of the language.

The issue being discussed is "change." We are talking about how change is
going to be managed in lojban, both before and after baselining. This is a
very important issue that must be discussed and resolved. There are serious
flaws in lojbab's approach, and he needs to be persuaded to change his
position. He is remembering what happened with the approach that JCB took
to managing change, but I fear he has learned the wrong lesson from this
experience. Please forgive my directness, and allow me to explain.

Two aspects of change are being discussed. The first issue is *much* less
imporant than the second. Less important first.

First, there are various improvements, extensions, and clarifications to
the grammer, cmavo and gismu. For example, there are the (related) issues
of Guttman scales, standards, fuzziness, and cardinality, which are
discussed in a long series of posts. When lojbab gets to the end of these
posts, I would be most interested in lojbabs opinion as to how lojban
should deal with these issues. I believe that some of these issues are best
resolved with constructions already existing in lojban by the process Jorge
designates "language exploration." However, I believe *some* of these
issues are best resolved by extensions to the language or changes to the
language: the inclusion of the selmaho <xoi> and the abolition of standard
positions in gismu are the only two that I strongly feel require
changes/extensions.

Second, and more importantly, there is the issue of how change is to be
managed in the language once it is baselined. JCB doubtless believed he had
good reasons for managing change in Loglan in the manner that he did. This
approach was reportedly somewhat autocratic, to the dismay of some. Lojbab
doubtless believes that there are good reasons for managing change in
lojban in the manner he is proposing.

As I understand it, lojbab's approach is a participative leadership style
until the language is baselined, and then an abdication of leadership, with
change henceforth to be managed laissez-faire by the speakers of lojban,
with no formal apparatus. This approach will lead to serious problems, and
we will eventually have to adopt some formal apparatus to deal with
rebaselining the language periodically, as informed by usage and future
insights as to the strength/weaknesses of the language.

For those of us now interested in lojban, this approach means we are each
putting pressure on lojbab to include our favorite extensions to the
language now before the baselining. If we could be reassurred that there
will be an (eventual) opportunity to rebaseline the language, perhaps those
with proposed grammer changes would feel less adamant about including those
changes in the initial baselining. Change is the one invariant of natlangs.
We must think carefully about how change is to be managed for lojban.

Lojbab has recognized the problem with leadership which occurred with
Loglan. It is to his credit that he wishes to provide better leadership for
lojban. But abdication of leadership after initial strong leadership is a
mistake. The de facto result of this will be that those changes which
lojbab believes ought to be included in the language at baseline will be
immortalized, and the (possibly valuable) inclusion of others will be
impeded. A few words on leadership.

Leadership styles run the gamut from rigid and autocratic to constantly
shifting and anarchic. There are successful examples of leadership all
along this spectrum; some endeavors require more heirarchy, others require
near chaos to work effectively. The key point here is that the nature of
the endeavor has a lot to do with whether a given leadership style will be
successful. Thus a person designated as a leader must carefully consider
how he will establish a style which will make success possible. If a leader
fails to tailor his leadership style to the endeavor, then the success of
the endeavor will be imperiled.

It is useful to consider three common leadership styles: participative
leadership, consultative leadership, or collaborative leadership. In
participative leadership, one individual runs a group, but delegates power
and decision making appropriately. In consultative leadership one
individual makes decisions, but only after consulting with others. In
collaborative leadership, the leader is first among equals, decision-making
is by consensus among the members of the team. The collaborative leadership
style seems most appropriate to manage post-baselining change.

>From Jorge's and lojbabs discussion on change:
>>This is a matter of public relations.
>
>And one that JCB managed horribly, and which we will manage horribly as well
>if we cannot present the image of standing very firm against change.

I strongly disagree. Standing firm against change is not the right lesson
to learn from the JCB-Loglan experience. Rather, matching the leadership
style to the project at hand is the right lesson. JCB failed to choose the
most effective leadership style for Loglan; lojbab now proposes a
different, but equally ill-advised leadership style, that is, initial
participative leadership followed by the absence of leadership. This is not
a good idea. I recently proposed a set of priniciples by which change in
lojban could be managed. lojbab pointed out that it has already been
decided that once the baseline is established, no formal changes will be
made for 5 years. This is fine. It is probably a good idea to allow some
time to pass before re-baselining. But a constitutional language convention
ought to be scheduled for the end of the five years.

If there is a broad consensus for formal recognition and inclusion of the
various "slang" extensions and changes which have entered the language,
then the implications of these extensions and changes should be carefully
worked out, and then a "lojban language academy" consisting of interested
experts should deliberate. If there is consensus on a point, it should be
adopted;if not, then the change should be deferred until the *next*
constitutional language convention. The genius of documents like the US
Constitution is that they have a built in apparatus for amending the
document.


>>None of the changes that occured
>>or were seriously proposed in the last three years (which is the time I've
>>known Lojban for) has or would have had much effect on Lojban as used.
>
>If they have no effect on Lojban as used, then they are unnecessary.

False dichotomy. Jorge said "none...had much effect" not "they had no effect"

>*I* will learn the language easier when it is
> baselined.  Furthermore, I will again be confident enough to try to SELL the
> language,
>which I am not now.  It will be easier because people can write teaching
>materials that will not become obsolete.  It will be easier because old Lojban
>text will remain "state of the art" longer.  And of course it will be
>psychoilogically easier to make the commitement.  Mostof the people who will
>learn Lojan will NOT learn it in a month or two of intensive work on LOjban
>List, but rather in loose time over 2 or 3 or more years.  They want the
> language and language materials that they start with to still be accurate at
> the end.
>
>>We must be reading different lists! How many grammar changes were discussed
>>in the last year? The only one I can think of, besides those made by John,
>>is And's {xoi}, which Stivn likes so much. I have no idea where I would get
>>material for 75 changes. pc's cmavo proposals for scope markers were never
>>explicited as grammar proposals because he never suggested what grammar
>>they would have. Probably they would be in UI, so they would not constitute
>>a grammar change.

As I've indicated, I believe that the issue of establishing a procedure for
periodically rebaselining lojban is more important than getting the initial
lojban baseline exactly right. For example, if and's suggested <xoi> were
included in the initial version of lojban, I will be very pleased. If it is
not, there are two possibilities:

A. No formal lojban revisions. If this is true, I will lose interest in
lojban, and probably not spend much more effort on learning or speaking it.
(Unless I can convince myself that there is some other slick method of
doing the same thing that doesn't take 15 syllables)

B. Formal revision procedure (every five years?)  with a lojban language
academy established. I will of course be disappointed that <xoi> is not in
the language, but I will redouble my efforts to learn the language with the
hope that through better understanding and rational discussion I will
persuade the members of the language academy to adopt mechanisms for
handling fuzziness, guttman scales, etc.

My amended recommendations for managing change after the baseline:

1. Add a formal version number to the name of lojban
<la papinomoi lojban> or <la pasosoxajoi lojban>

"lojban 1.0 or lojban 1996"

After a five year initial period, if there is a broad and deep consensus
about changes to be made, and a new version of lojban seems reasonable,
then work out all the collisions, implications, and subtle effects of the
proposed new elements of lojban. la lojbanistani can then meet at the next
lojban bash

<xu le lojban mumnoncitsi>

where merriment & social lubricants will be featured, and where the academy
of right-thinking lojbi will eventually give the stamp of approval to the
new version.

2. As part of the new version release, assure that there is a well-defined,
nonambiguous translation algorithm from la papinomoi lojban -> la papipamoi
lojban (or whatever). Thus all well-formed extant texts can be translated.

3. Agree to a standard notation for lojban version specification; for
example, at the beginning of an utterance, the version of lojban to be used
could be specified.

<.i ti gerna la papinomoi lojban>

4. Emphasize that there will be considerable tolerance to experimental
additions/changes to lojban among the lojban community. But these will be
uncertified "slang" usages until & unless a broad and deep consensus builds
as to incorporation of the "slang" into the latest release of lojban. Such
changes will then be considered at the next meeting of the lojban academy

5. Maintain a list of recognized problems in lojban. As solutions appear,
propose them for inclusion in the next version of lojban. Maintain a
specification of "proposed, but still under consideration"
changes/additions/extensions as part of the formal definition of the
language.


>And as John just mentioned
>to be today, the problem in writing these thinsg is not the writing itself,
>but in deciding what to write about.  That last year's discussion of lo/le
>and family will have ENORMOUS impact on what he evenutally writes on the
>logic paper, i am sure.

Perhaps John and lojbab are trying to do too much for the baseline. If we
build in a mechanism for eventual revision, then it will be easier for them
to get the first version done, as they will be less concerned about making
everything optimal.

>>> John and I have found, and presume that others find it as well, that the
>>> image of instability affects those of us working on learning or using the
>>> language FAR MORE than the changes themselves.
>>
>>Then let's change that image. You should not react so violently to changes
>>that have no effect whatsoever on learning

Agreed. Change in and of itself shouldn't be absolutely forbidden. However,
once baselined, changes in the formal definition of the language should be
*hard* to make. They should not be *impossible* to make! My suggestion of a
lojban academy is intended to make it very hard, but still possible, to
change the formal definition of the language, while still allowing
unofficial slang. Lojbab's proposal of letting the users of the language
develop their own slangs is fine, but we still need a way of specifying
what "standard" lojban is. Lojban is not a natural language, and I believe
we loose something by allowing it to turn into one if we don't have some
kind of standards mechanism. The French and Brazilian Portuguese academies
provide use with an opportunity to learn from the experience of others.
There is a reason why such language academies exist.

>All changes affect learning.
>> Or rather, that they make
>>learning easier by removing unjustified exceptions.
>
>All such chjanges affect the refgrammar, which generally mentions the
> exceptions.
>
>>That debate was mostly of the "what does this mean" kind, not of the
>>"let's introduce new stuff" kind.
>
>
>No, it was a how to say it debate,w here every new proposal on how to say it
>met with some objection.  By the tine the debate was 2 weeks old, I was
> convinced that the existing language was going to turn out to have some
> irremediable
>hole in it - that there was somewhere in t6he "this doesn't work" arguments
>that were being posted that would sooner or later lead to the conclusion
>that there was a real gap in the language.  I can;t say to this day that this
>deabte was resolved with the consensus being that allavanues are covered
>by the current language.  It is thus for me an open ande throbbing isisue,
>one that can;t be put behind us until we know that the isses are all resolved
>or with the books out so we can say that the language is done and working
>de jure regardles of endless de facto questions.
>

Jorge, wouldn't my proposal assuage some of your concerns about "freezing"
the language? If you are correct, then you and other speakers will adopt
the slang you propose, and eventually they will be considered at the every
five years lojban convention. I think lojbab should be the president of the
convention, and that the academy should consist of (maximum) 15-20 people.

Sorry to post so much English, but I understand that lojbab does not read
all the lojban, and this post is directed largely at him.

cohomihe la stivn


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413