Re: On Lojban

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

Lojbab:

> BUT, because of the learning curve and the reluctance of people to
> start, I feel that it is necessary to get a large core of people
> started learning what you would consider the less refined generic
> language, having them avoid the bad habits we have identified
> (like certain kinds of metaphor, unmarked sumti raising and
> attitudinals, etc), and then using thos larger more skilled body
> of speakers to refine the language to the more "perfected" goal.
> I see the difference between the two more a matter of ensuring good
> habits of usage than one of adjusting the baselined language.
> Thus we will come to increase the number of bad habits to be
> avoided, and indeed may add specific good habits to aim for.

I agree with this, and the debates that you moan about are
conducted to support the furtherance of the aims you state
here.

> Beleive it or not, this whole issue was debated around 15 years
> ago.

I believe it. Progress is always made through discussions of
a helical nature.

> JCB and Jeff Prothero and perhaps others were involved.  The
> conclusion that was reached was that Loglan Mark I would be the
> best we could do, but that almost certainly that there would be a
> Loglan Mark II that would as much more logical than Loglan Mark I
> as the latter is compared to English.  But that it would take a
> group of designers thoroughly fluent in Loglan Mark I and indeed
> perhaps a whole community to support them, in order to have to
> insight into logic and language necessary to do the design.

I wonder why they came to this conclusion. For example, I am anything
but fluent in Lojban, but to the extent that anyone is expert in
Lojban semantics, I am.

> Thus my immediate practical goal is somewhat less than what you
> would prefer but I recognize the long term aim as being the same
> as what you seek.  I am willing to defer the higher goal because
> I am convinced by that prior discussion that it is likely to
> proceed that way anyhow, and I an cinvinced by the developments
> of the last 5 years or so, that indeed the fine semantics and
> logical analysis of the language will be much easier as time goes
> on, just as each year has brought us ever more refiend insights
> into usage.

There clearly is progress in the refinement of our insights,
but it is due to the ongoing debates.

--And