Re: ro broda/ro lo broda

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

>To: Gerald Koenig <jlk@netcom.com>
>Status: RO
>
>>>The era of 5 years has not yet begun.
>>
>>djer>
>>I guess that depends on who you are.  Lojbab is our president so I will
>>quote him:

(deletions)

>>lojbab>

>
>As I have indicated elsewhere, the question of what ro broda or ci broda
>is equivalent to is a semantics question and not a grammar question - it does
>not affect the YACC grammar and hence is not part of any baseline yet
>established.  There will probably be something said about the matter in the
>refgrammar though, which will make it semi-baselined by the simple act of
>publishing the book, in that people have been far more reluctant to change
>things once they have seen print.

djer>
Whether a change is propagated from usage to the grammar or from grammar
to usage, the long term result is the same.  Clearly the usage and the
YACC grammar specification cannot be allowed to diverge if we want a
single "logical language."


lojbab>
>
>The "democratic" mode of change that will exist after the baseline will
>be that people can use it the langauge,a nd if they misuse the language and
>are understood, the deviation may come to be acceptable Lojban.  Such misuses
>may include actual improvements, as well as illogical garbage.  Hopefully
>the commitment of most active users of the language to retaining its intended
>character will mean that illogical changes that crop up in usage will be
>rejected by the community either naturally, or upon  the illogic being pointed
>out to them.  That process will be democratic in that anyone can make a
>change, anyone else can accept or reject it, and anyone can try to convince
>other Lojbanists that a usage that is catching on violates the spirit of the
>language and should be rejected.  In 5 years we'll see if the changes that
>have survived leave the language intact and make one final attempt to ensure
>that the language is on a "true" path, but the procedures and real effect of
> that post-5 year abnalysis are indeterminate.  As someone pointed out, the
>Esperanto Academy is NOT able to invoke changes or resolutions of disputes as
>to what the language is any longer.  this will undoubtedly be true of Lojban
>as well, once the community reaches some level of robustness.
>
>lojbab


I think your view of the future of lojban as a kind of laissez-faire
linguistic darwinism where the fit innovations survive is unduly
pessimistic.  I'd like to believe that we can do better than the
Esperanto Academy.  So long as we believe we must repeat their
experience, our belief will be self-fulfilling and create the reality.

The problem with conlangs so far is simply a lack of genuine democratic
process.  We know even from recent world history what happens to
political structures that are paternalistic and male-dominated.  We
have men struggling for control at all costs.  The search for
consensual truth goes by the board.  Lojban will degenerate into a kind
of intellectual Rwanda or undergo Balkanization if it continues its
present course.  We will learn from conlang history or we will repeat
it.

Witness the current struggle concerning ro, dapoi and existence.  There
has been no opportunity to let genuine democratic process work inside a
parlimentary structure before a forced decision must be made to publish
the refgrammar on schedule. A consensus could be reached on this matter
with time, leadership, and an academy.  Let the refgrammar follow the
community, not vice versa. That is the direction of the flow in the
generation of laws in a democracy.  They are changed by the same
mechanism.



As to my specific concerns on the set vs logic definition of
quantifiers,I will only state very briefly here that the structure
"[PA] lo [PA] broda"  uses "lo" to mean "taken from a set of" broda and
creates a set of broda, while number has been defined without reference
to sets. Nowhere in the dictionary is "lo" so defined.  This convention
stretches the use of idiom beyond the elastic limit.

I can't say more without falling into the illogical position of taking
part in decision-making by cabal, and violating my public commitment
not to participate in grammar initiatives that are outside a structured
democratic process.  Anyway, my position on the quantifier issue is
already on record from a discussion on the list, and I will e-mail it
to you and anyone else who wants to review it if asked.  I am serious
about not being a party to change by executive decree, and will not
take part in any more language change discussions until there exists a
functioning democratic process with the same rules for all.  I have no
way of knowing that my proposals are any more important than Colin's,
Xorxes', yours, Cowan's, Chris's or Vilva's, Stivn's, etc.  until some
democratic machinery is in operation. Pc is on another plane as far as
I am concerned, but I doubt that he would mind equal footing.

It's your unenviable position as symbolic parent of this organization to
be the one to stop all the swordplay, knock heads together, and get us
playing constructively.  You won't be able to do it without a lot of
help from Mother Democracy and Lady Luck.


djer