Re: reply to And #3

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

>I agree that the refgram should not be treated this way. But what,
>then, do we do in cases where it is unclear? All we can do is
>make our usage choices arbitrarily, or do as we have been doing,
>and debate what is the most lojbanic solution.

pc answered this long ago, before we started the Lojban split. "Let a
thousand flowers bloom".  If the refgrammar does not specify, then "let
usage decide".  After 5 years of baselining, we HOPE that there will be
enough usage that the kinds of debates that you are trying for will either
be moot, or productively led down more narrow paths.

>> >and we are trying
>> >to build a community that actually conforms to those principles
>> >and conventions, then we need some kind of "usage police".
>>
>--More--
>> Why? can we not merely use the same principles used by natlangs and let
>> usage police itself (and that of the Internet and let Users police
>> Themselves).
>
>Because, for ffffffffffffffffff*%@'s sake, natlangs evolve their
>own conventions. Noone sat down and said: now let's try and
>create an English-speaking community where speech follows
>conventions X, Y, Z.

But new speakers of the language conform to the conventions that already exist
without the nedd for a language police.  (And I would disagree, because I
think that the French Academy, modern Hebrew, and Noah Webster each set
forth conventions by dictum, many of which were followed thereafter.
And others like Shakespeare set forth conventions by example, which others
have then followed, even if he did not necessarily sit down and decide to
establish those conventions.

In the case of the IOnternet, of course, there has been rather more explicit
setting forth of the conventions.  Not everyone follows them of course,
but mostr do to some considerable extent.

>If there's no usage police then there's no force to keep
>usage in conformity with the prescribed conventions.

What keeps internet practice inconformance with the stated conventions?---------

>> pc has said that while many of the basics of logic have been well
>> agreed-upon, each school of logic has its own nuances and elaborations
>> which conflict with each other.  I get the feeling that you are trying
>> to have us commit to a whole set of such nuances and elaborations as to
>> the basics that we are simply not ready for, and will likely not be
>> ready for until we have substantial mastery of the basics that we have.
>
>I'm not necessarily trying to get you to commit to a set of
>nuances and elaborations. I'm trying to get you to face up to
>the existence of these "problem areas", and ensure that the
>--More--
>Lojban method of getting round them is not in conflict with
>the more clearly-thought-out parts.


The Lojban method of getting around them is to use the language and find out
what works to get around them, relying on a general mindset among the
users of the language to uphold thestated conventions including the well-
thought-out parts to keep the solutions in line with what has gone before.
The computational power for logical and semantic analysis of 1000 Lojbanists
working independently in parallel is far greater than that of 5 Lojbanists
 working in series on a more carefully dovetailed program of analysis.
 Somewhere
in that 1000 Lojbanist computer someone will devise a communicative solution
to a problem of expressiuon which will not only be understood, but will
promulgate through the community because the listener and speaker both recognize
that it "worked".  It will run up against the Jorge's and the And's andthe
pc's of the community, and if it comes to be used by them as well, it will
thus presumably be accepted as a valid solution.

>If you are saying that we can't engage in these debates until
>more people know sufficient logic, then you may be right, but
>we might as well try to do our best.
>
>If you are saying that we can't engage in these debates until
>more people know more Lojban, then you know my views on that.

I am saying thate the speaking community is not yet robust enough to enable us
to fully understand the problems you are trying to solve, nor to devise
solutions that will survive.

Many of the language problkemns solved within the last 5 years were not
solvable until the language community had reached the level of sophistication
that it had reached, in order to see that the problems were both important
and solvable with consistency.  We needed Nick's usage to tackle things like
sumti-raising, relative clauses, and lujvo-making conventions.  Efforts at the
latter for example, by Carter, failed at leats in part because they were
 premature (I think Nick's effort was premature also to serve as a STANDARD, but
 I
lostthat one %^).  The pretty little girls school problem was analyzed up
the wazoo by JCB and it sttod for over 10 years, before it was torn up as
sloppy analysis.  There followed 3 or more years of incolclusive debate
which included disagreements over just how many meanings of PLGS were possible
much less how to represent them.  But when it cam time for me to put it into
LOjban, the problem was disposed of in a day, and one or two tweaks a
little later have stood for 10 years since with no discussion necessary
(our design differs slightly from JCB's current one because of those tweaks).
Similarly, 25 years of grappling with abstractions and JCB STILL hasn't
realized the basic equvalence of "nu klama" and "nu zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e
zo'e" - he has two grammatical forms for abstractions with elaboration and
without and it is incredibly clumsy, not to mention that it violates
audio-visual isomorphism without the inclusion of "pause" as a grameme
in parallel to it use as a phoneme (which we consider "bad form").  It
fell out quite simply from a lot of usage, and all the analysis and
argument beforte or since has not led JCB to the same conclusion because
he does not have the usage.

Meanwhile in other areas, JCB's language has evolved IDENTICALLY to Lojban
in the solution of problems, though they run around 5 years behind us in
even recognizing the problem.  The analysis leads them basically to the same
place where we have gotten much quicker by establihing this minimal
usage community that Jorge and Nick adn Ivan and Athelstan, etc. got started.
Our lead has continued to grow, and it will continue - and this is the offshoot
of the now 25 person or so Lojban USER community.  JCB has recently developed
his first TLI Loglan user who is comparable in prolificity to Nick.  I
think we have at least 25 people who could if they chose produce text as
voluminously as Nick did.  I think when this happens, your debates will be
washed away in a tide of solution-by-usage.

>> No doubt some usages will occur that contraduct each other in subtleties
>> of logic.  But I am content to let that happen and resolve it later when
>> we actuall can see the examples of how it leads to problems.
>
>You are content to let that happen and resolve it later: ok. So
>what. Why bother participating in the debates of those who aren't
>content, and instead want to discover better usages now?

Why do I participate - because it is on Lojban List and public and therefore
influences the public image of the language.  If I cannot overcome the
image of Lojban as a ultra-technical debating society, I'll never get the
1000 speakers I want in 5 years.  Maybe my rejectiomn of the fine logical
analysis that you guys seem to want is an instinctive reaction that such
analysis drives peopleaway and makes less august brains feel that they cannot
learn the language.  I know they are wrong, but we need more text to show
this.

>We don't
>have to wait to find examples: I can tell you that as a linguist
>myself. Although one does stumble upon key examples in natural
>data, usually one doesn't notice them, or can't find them when
>needed, so instead one creates the example utterances one needs.

But in many cases we CAN find the data.  And in the case of Lojban where the
vast bulk of usage is archived, looking for  the examples is more likely
to be productive than, say , for English, where the written language is
secondary and largely not searchable with computational tools.

>And how will you resolve it later?

If usage does not explicitly solve the problem itself, we will look at what
has been done with much wiser eyes about what CAN be done.

>> And I am not entirely sure a problem has occurred until someone says
>> something that someone else cannot understand based on all information
>> available includingcontext.
>
>Fine. But not all of us feel the same way. Some of us desire there
>to be a close match between the literal meaning of our utterances
>and the intended meaning. Indeed, that is a semi-implicit part of
>the language design, you tell us. So those of us who do care will
>endeavour to solve these things that you do not think problems.


BY all measn do so - but pray do so by USING the language rather than by
debating about it.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.