[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lojban evolution

> >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.
> That is CERTAINLY not my intended implication.  I would go so far as to
> say that And, for example is a good deal more "sophisticated" than I
> will ever be.  Actually, your typo pins the donkey on the tail.  YOu are
> not being UNsophisticated enough, like most of the people who would
> learn Lojban, so it may be your lack of UNsophistication that leads to
> the problem.  Lojban is NOT intended to be an esoteric language for the
> sophisticated, but a model of a natural language, and natural languages
> are spoken mostly by the unsophisticated.

It seems to me that it is only John's remarkable powers of perspicuous
exposition that prevents Lojban from being impenetrably arcane. It
seems to require sophistication. You couldn't really call any current
lojbanist unsophisticated. I can't understand how newcomers like Jorge
& Goran seem to instantly know the language inside out.

In what sense is Lojban intended to be "a model of a natural language"?
You mean it's modelled ON natural language?

> If you use the official version of the language, you are speaking
> Lojban.  If you deviate too far, then the vast majority of Lojbanists
> will reject your usage as non-Lojban.  (Jim Carter can undoubtedly
> testify to this.)  And seems to be trying to explore to find out where
> that point is %^).

Do you mean jimc can testify to his usage not being Lojban? Jimc's
silence appears to be relatively self-imposed; I rather wish he would
tout guaspi a bit more on this list. I might be willing to consider
guaspi to be lojban.

> >You JCB-detractors are <peha> throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> And one JCB apologist needs to learn some JCB history, so he can join
> debate with another, quite practiced, JCB apologist.  (I think And can
> certainly recall several times when I put down one of his proposals with
> lu'e"this is the way the language is, because that is what JCB said, and
> I agree with it".)

Yes, & very noisome it is too, that appeal to canon.

coo, mie mistasofistication