Re: CLD

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

lojbab:
> >> After 5 years, if there seems to be need for some further prescriptive
> >> work, then people can debate doing so, hopefully in Lojban.
> >These people can do it now, not just after 5 years.
> Well, no one can or will stop people from doing so.  There just will be
> the antithesis of support from Lojban Central.

Then it would be you who was splitting the community.

> >If your goal is to attract learners & users (which it indeed is) then
> >your attitude is very sensible. If your intention is to get things to
> >go the way you want them to, then you're going the right way about it.
> >If, though, you're also aiming to represent the interests of committed
> >lojbanists, then clearly you're failing (in this matter).
> Am I?

Yes.

> Are not John and I and Nora and Bob Chassell, etc. NOT committed
> Lojbanists because we would rather NOT forever discuss change proposals?

Indeed these individuals are not not committed lojbanists, but it is not
the case that it is because they would rather not forever discuss change
proposals that they are not not committed lojbanists.

> The number of people who are discussing change proposals because they
> want the language to change further are fewer than a half dozen.

You are still representing only the majority view.

> Meanwhile, others tend to shut up and bow out just vbecause the debate
> is this hypertechnical change proposal related stuff.

It is untrue that there is much debate related to change proposals.
The hypertechnicality doubtless puts people off, but anyone deterred by
hypertechnicality would probably be happier with Glosa anyway.

> >> Every language that has NOT managed to officially terminate the right
> >> of fiddlers to deliberate and make changes has failed.
> >For you the criterion of success is the number of speakers. For me,
> >the criterion of success is the quality of the product.
> For me the criterion of success is survival with a self-sustaining
> community. Most conlangs have dies with their creators, or even sooner
> when their creators moved on to something new. An ever-perfecting
> language with no speakers and users is a philsophical game that a few
> might wish to play, but it will survive only as long as thise few stay
> focussed on that solitary goal.

Given your goals, your conduct in leading the community is wise and
effective. I object only to those goals; and I rather suspect that
the goals have changed. Both the design and the procedure of developing
it have been far from optimally conducive to establishing a flourishing
community. For example, ease of learning vocab has been sacrificed to
the theoretically interesting but practically useless goal of
self-segmentation. There has been an inordinate amount of tinkering
to effect very small-scale improvements.

You spent many years doing pretty much what I think we should carry on
doing, until you reached a point (a couple of months ago) where you did
an about turn and sought to bring down the guillotine on grammar changes
irrespective of their merits. You could have baselined the language years
ago; the changes made in recent years have been few and minor.

> And yes, I do feel that a language that is not spoken is not a language,
> and hence the theoretical stuff that is not used or usable is largely a
> waste of time. But I do recognize that other people like the intellectual
> game. I can respect this, so long as they respect the needs of those who
> have other goals.

I'm not convinced that you do respect this, or even understand it.
As for those who value the intellectual game, everyone who such a
description appears to fit supports the goal of publishing the
reference materials as soon as their authors are able to finish them,
and, I imagine, supports the goal of building a self-sustaining
community around lojban.

> >> The people who are qualified will be the ones who are using the
> >> language THEN, and not those of us who are pontificating about it now.
> >I have confidence in the competence of every current pontificator to
> >contribute to the progress of the lojban design.
> Perhaps, but the Steven for example has said that he would not feel
> qualified to serve in an Academy.

Yes, but he's still competent to contribute to the progress of the lojban
design. For example, if the guillotine has not fallen, then he would
have been contributing to the addition of new cmavo, and probably selmao,
for fuzziness.

coo, mie And