Re: ro broda/ro lo broda

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>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."


But once Lojban enters the realm of "living language", i.e. the prescriptive
period ends, and we go under baseline, then "allow" becomes an inoperative
word.  We can try to "influence", but Lojban Central has no power to
enforce, and hence to disallow (we actually don't now, but are at least
CLAIMING the right to prescribe).  The problem is NOT one of being
pessimistic, but that the current paradigm in linguistics is that
prescriptivism is not consistent with natural use.  I am not sure this is
right, but I think that the effects of prescriptivism are not fully
natural in the sense of allowing Sapir-Whorf etc. effects to work, and
hence at SOME point we will have to let go.

>
>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.

As I just said, it is not merely a question of what is possible, but what is
desirable.  I am SURE that I will have far more prescriptive effect by my
comments and pronouncements on actual usage than the Esperanto Academy does.
But anything I pronounce upon therefore renders the language a creature of
my mind and not the speaker's.  To the extent that Lojban is to be used as
a laboratory for lingusitic research, it must not operate differently from
natural languages - i.e. individuals other than the speaker ought have
no unnatural prerogative/influence.  Otherwise Sapir-Whorf effects will
be instead analyzable as Bob LeChevalier effects.

>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.

I am not really convinced that genuine democratic processes necessarily result
in consensus politics.  There really are right and wrong answers to questions,
and different people do see moral, as well as political imperatives (not to
mention aesthetic ones in some cases).  I don't view And's refusal to use
apostrophe as a result of paternalism, male dominance or men struggling for
control, but merely an individual asserting his independence.  I suspect that
there is no consensus that will bring him to use apostrophe, nor one that will
cause everyone else to adopt his approach.  And this is merely one of
countless issues, so many we can hardly keep track of much less determine
what if any consensus there is.

>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.

The "any" discussion has been going on for 1 1/2 years at significant
intensity, and what I am skimming as it goes past indicates that issues
coming up were debated by JCB over 15 years ago and resolved then changed
the changed again.  Time has NOT settled these issues, because  I think
in the final analysis there are two contradictory sets of assumptions (or
more) that are at play, and in matters of philosophy, it is not necessarily
the cas4e that one set of assumptions is more correct than another.  As pc
said recently, on one particular issue, some standard encyclopedia of
philosophy has 5 different answers to some basic question.  Which is right for
Lojban?  Well, since most of us probably don't have the background to
even understand all 5 answers, how are we to decide?  Defer to pc (as I have
chosen)?  Well that is fine only so long as everyone agrees with me (and pc).

>Let the refgrammar follow the
>community, not vice versa.

That is what will happen in the post baseline period - the documents
become descriptive of the usage of the community and not prescriptive.
BUT, if the community does NOT reach a consensus, then we can call it
schism, or we can calll it "laissez-faire
linguistic darwinism" - the point is that I am not in charge, nor is the
refgrammar.

>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.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for.  You want someone
or some group to exercise authority over the language per the Esperanto
Academy, yet you do not want a cabal.  Virtaully all models of an "academy"
presume that by its nature, such a group consists of people especially
knowledgeable, academic, (in JCB's opinion judicial in temperament as
opposed to political).  Giving such a group any power other than the weakest
sort of advisory power is to my mind to opposite of a "structured
democratic process".  The other extreme is of course pure anarchy in which
the democracy is everyones supposedly equal right to debate here on the net
- but of course the vase majority of Lojbanists are not and perhaps cannot
participate on the net.

We DO have democratic process, though it can arguably also be called a
cabal by those who choose not to accept it.  I am answerable to the Board
of Directors, who are in turn answerable to the voting membership of LLG.
So Lojban is in effect governed by a democratic process of 5 people
representing a couple dozen people, who we have tried to select so as to
be diverse and not necessarily of one mind (and we have never turned down
a person for voting membership who has stated their commitment to
participate in the responsibilities fo such membership).  So is that voting
membership a "cabal"?  or is the Board?  hard to say in my mind.

But the voting membership has quite strongly indicated that it DOES NOT want
language decisions at this stage to be decided by their debating them - they
want the right to advise me and the team I work with, and I think they want me
 to accept onto that team anyone who is willing to step forward and accept the
responsibilities that come with such team membership.  In short, on any
given issue we reconstitute a model of the LLG membership - self-selected
to debate and cooperate to a consensus.  But the particpants on any issue
are self-selcted based on the issue andf their time and interest.  Thus the
 language design is NOT under the control of the voting membership.  It is under
Cowan and my control solely in that we have made it our business to be part of
the process on every identifiable issue that has import to the refgrammar.
But on the other hand, neither of us takes part in any issue discussion that
takes place in Lojban.  Thus Goran and Jorge could have settled some design
issues in Lojban that Cowan and I do not know about (though probably not by
overt decision, but merely by using the language freely and thus establishing
patterns and conventions that will be around when Cowan and I start interacting
in Lojban with the community).

It is on matters of logic that we are farthest from a democracy.  AFAIK, pc
is somewhat more than first among equals on matters logical, and most
old-timers agree with this - basically we presume that we are not going to
have the breadth nd depth of training in the field of logic that someeone who
has been working in the field for 30 years has.  WE can thus comment and
question, but if pc ever reaches a decision, consensus quickly forms around
that decision because most of us simply defer to him.  Usually, however, pc
simply eliminates the bad choices, and leaves it up to me-and-others to
select among the plausible as to whcih is most consistent with the way the
resto f the design is evolving.

> 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.

No ones PROPOSAL is more important than any others, so long as it is clearly
presented as a proposal (most ideas on the list are never formally proposed).
We don;t have any clear RULES on how formal proposals are dealt with, but
we do have a pattern that they are all dealt with in the same way.

In the absence of formal proposals, the bottom limne is that the person writing
 the book makes the final decision.  Of course it can then be said that the
publisher of the book has final veto power, but reasonably spoken, the
language is being designed by those willing to write the books.  And there
is NO "mechanism" that can overrule the writer's prerogative.  Thus I have
no power over the refgrammar other than that which Cowan is wiloing to
give me in deference on decisions.  And if you or someone else wanted to
write a conflicting refgrammar, we cannot stop you.  At the point where there
comes to be such conflict, I would presume that the voting membership could
vote a formal approval or sanction for some document over others, possibly
with stated exceptions if Cowan insisted on something that everyone else
in the community disliked (not likely of course).  But the formal sanction
of the voting membership has no legal force - no effect on what language you
or Jorge or And Rosta or even I choose to use.

The bottom line is that a democracy only works if its members all fully agree to
 be bound by the decisions of the community.  And there is no formal mechanism
 that can guarantee that.

>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.

Actually, I suspect the swordplay will stop when Cowan says "the refgrammar
is done.  Publish it!".  And the publication decision will then be that of
the publisher and any financial backers who are paying for the publication
(since LLG will not have enough money to publish without outside backing
= donations haven't nearly been on the scale needed to publsih books).

lojbab