On Lojban

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> These last three responses seem worthy of debate in separate
> threads. What is the language, what is usage of the language, and
> what constitutes satisfaction with our results.  I think tyhey
> would attract more discussion if removed from the mind-boggling
> logic usage threads.

> >> >I realize that to many these discussions are arcane, pedantic and
> >> >pointless.
> >>
> >> I am beginning to feel that all of them are, until we get more usage.
> >
> >By what criteria would Lojban be deemed by you to have succeeded?
> >If your answer is " adynamic and sizable speech community using
> >Lojban", explain what counts as "using Lojban".
>
> Several criteria, each according to the particular goals.  The one you
> stated applies to many of them either directly or indirectly (such a
> community will increase our respect among linguists, IAL proponents, and
> computer applkications people because they will know that the language
> "works" as a language, is learnable, etc.)
>
> In the context of the net, I would presume that "using Lojban" includes
> all the sorts of things that one might see being done with Esperanto on
> the net.  People exchanging correspondence in the language, trnaslating
> or writing new literature in the language, a newsgroup wherte people who
> argue for change are constantly shouted down %^), whereas people who
> advocate change while writing in the language get a fair listen (and
> then still have minimal effect though mindsets can change and evolve
> over such debates).
>
> I still would like to see us manage to hold our annual meeting of LLG in
> Lojban some year, but it won't be soon %^).

This is pretty much what I thought. You wish to see loads of
text parsable by a Lojban parser, and full of Lojban words.

Whereas I, given that I accept (unenthusiastically) the baseline,
am primarily interested in investigating lo ka ce`a jufra ce`a
the relationship between sentences and their meaning (especially
logical aspects). I'm then secondarily interested in there
being a community of speakers who "speak logically", in a way
such that the logical meaning of the sentences they use matches
very closely the logical structure of the ideas they wish to
communicate.

I'm not at all interested in your preferred goals; or rather, I'm
interested in them, but only because they are the goals of my
friends (for, despite the several year's worth of rudeness in
my messages, such is how I think of my fellows on this list).

> >> That argument worked before we declared the baseline.  Now by dictum the
> >> language prescription is done, and the language is what it is.
> >
> >So what is the language, then?
>
> What is any language?

Well I've already given my answer, but you prefer some alternative.

> In Lojban lo bangu requires lo se bangu and it is
> that collection of usages performed by lo se bangu presumably when they
> are acting as a community (so it is a mass effect).
>
> >> Until we
> >> get 5 years of usage history, I will question whether we have any idea
> >> whether Lojban is or is not fulfilling anything.
> >
> >So suppose we do nothing, wait five years, and find out that it
> >isn't fulfillinf anything, but might have had we not done nothing,
> >would you then sit back in satisfaction?
>
> The baseline is for 5 years MINIMUM.

The baseline is on the gerna, not on the nuncusku.

> If no one uses the language at all
> in 5 years, we might need to figure out why and go back to the drawing
> board.  But I am confident that will not happen.  But if we collectively
> think that we need more time, then we will wait more than 5 years.
> Maybe wait as long as Esperanto has waited for its big revision %^).

I understand your position. Your goal is that there be lots of
Lojban usage. You don't care what kind of usage it is, so long
as it doesn't involve too much of a certain kind of metaphor.
And the best way to achieve your goal is to do everything to
encourage people to use Lojban and nothing to discourage it.

I don't think your goals are those of generic Loglan, and I do
think that the achievement of your goals is hindered by any
efforts to achieve my goals and those of generic Loglan.

Actually, I should rephrase that bit about generic Loglan.
Perhaps the main, and rather fatuous, goal of generic Loglan
was to equip people with a culturally-neutral language (for
which end a lg based on logic seemed a good choice) and then
get them to use it, to see if there are any whorfian effects.
That does seem to be your goal. But a secondary goal of Loglan,
and one that I suspect holds more attraction for more people, is
that it be a logical language. This secondary goal conflicts
with the primary one. You favour the primary one and I favour
the secondary one.

--And