lojban evolution

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

lojbab:
>>> 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.
>
lojbab:
>This has been less than clear to me, and the continuying agitation for
>a commitment to continuing change in the language tells me that those
>supoorting that type of commitment do not understand the concerns of the
>community that has largely held back from learning the language.

This seems like an odd conclusion; it appears to be a logical fallacy
(baseless attribution). Isn't it just as likely that those suggesting some
(grammatically minor) changes/additions to lojban have legitimate concerns
regarding (semantically major) issues? I get the distinct impression that
you are assuming that several dissenters (including me) are extraordinarily
unsophisticated, and that that lack of unsophistication is the source of
our dissent. Speaking for myself, I *understand* the issues you have
repeatedly raised regarding the problem  of language change (language
learning difficulties, unanticipated collisions with other language
constructs, unnecessary complexity, etc.). I have been a victim of these
changes also; I am forgetting my loglan to learn my lojban. I have
explicitly and repeatedly acknowledged that I *agree* that change causes
problems.

Those participating in the lojban/Loglan schism do not have a unique
understanding of conflict resolution. Your schism "solution" was, in my
view, a bloody tragedy; maybe it was the best course, but it is hardly a
ringing endorsement of your political skills. Each time discussion of the
schism comes up, there is talk of how JCB is to blame for the split. In
general, "blame-assigning" is non-productive in resolving conflicts, and
suggests a lack of management savvy by the blamers, both then and now. Yet
it is management savvy which is needed for the management of change in
lojban.

Your allegedly "non-political" approach is actually quite political; your
opposition to "politics" (which you decry) is a defacto quashing of dissent
so as to rush into publication. You may think you are right, and many may
agree with you. You are still quashing dissent.

>
>I myself have sympathy with the intellectual game aspect of the language.
>However, i haven;t been able to play the game for years - this is my work and
>not my play, alas , and I get too mentally exhausted from the work aspect to
>use it for play as well.  It also hurts that I haven't nearly the background
>to understand the intellectual games that have gone around inthe last year or
> so.  I don;t have time to read the advanced linguistics works that will
>give >me that background.
>

& (regarding me):
>>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.
>
>The guillotine fell over 3 years ago, but it was not a clean cut, and we have
>had to try twice more to produce a clean cut.  Hopefully this time it will
>work, because we are announcing that the guillotineis falling and tying down
>the neck as much as possible so it cannot move during the fall.  Yecch!
>what a bloody metaphor! (and a worse pun zo'o).

Interesting choice of metaphor too. Competent guillotining is rather an
unfuzzy affair, rather a poor choice for analogy to the birth of a conlang,
I would say.

steven:
>>Good. I notice there is no gismu for slang:
>
>(deleted by lojbab)
lojbab:
>Why would we need one.  make a lujvo.

(First you complained about my lack of using emoticons, then you deleted
both my definition *and* the emoticon, thereby substantially changing the
meaning of my statement. As 60 minutes proves every Sunday, it is possible
to make anyone appear an idiot by selectively editing their words. I don't
need any help being an idiot, I accomplish that task daily even without
biased editing.)

>I see in such a suggestion a basic lack
>of understanding of the differences between us and JCB over what constitutes
>a valid gismu.

I see in your reply either utter cluelessness or feigned misunderstanding.
We were discussing slang as an example of post-baselining lojban evolution
here. In spite of your planned social disapproval of the invasion of the
gismu, I predict that invasion of gismu space will be a common source of
slang in fluent lojban speakers. Previously, you told me that JCB did not
approve of gismu slang, when I gave you a reference, you then say I fail to
understand the difference between JCB's approach and yours. It is *you* who
are missing my point.

>In Lojban that is a "root" - something useful in compounds or
>which cannot be represented in compounds.  For JCB it was an attempt to find
>semantic primitives i.e. basic  ideas., with a heavy load of Zipfean
>analysis >of other language built in.

And Zipf + mimicry = gismu invasion by slang. This is my point. This
particular issue is an *example* of the kind of problem an academy could
address. I see that by giving *examples*, I get your attention, (at least
you are not diffidently dismissing my concerns with baseless assertions, as
you did previously), but you still just don't get it.

I find your suggestion that I read your review of lojban 1 4th edition
(again!) to be rather condescending. Firstly, you already gave me the
review last summer, which I read. Secondly, I already agreed with the
substance of your review in previous discussions. There are typos, between
chapter inconsistencies, within chapter inconsistencies, wild assertions,
major omissions, etc. It lacked a good editor, because all possible editors
fled or were driven away, depending on one's point of view. As a speakable
language, lojban is (out of the box) much superior to Loglan. No question.
But *you* have a blind spot, which JCB did not have, and that blind spot is
language evolution.

Put aside your preconceived notion of the flaws in JCB's text, and just
reread it for the *ideas*. That's why I posted the JCB excerpt; it
addresses precisely the issue you are glossing over. JCB is right on about
change, conflict between different types of lo??an-o-philes regarding
change, and language development in general. You JCB-detractors are <peha>
throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

-Steven


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