Re: On Lojban

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

Lojbab:
> I want to add that I think a key problem in choosing immediate vs long term
> goals has to do with the pedagogical sophistication of those who are
> teaching the language.  If I am writing the Lojban textbook, then the logical
> aspects that are taught therein will be no more sophisticated than I have been
> able to learn.  This will no doubt be a depressing thought for you and Jorge
 %^)
>
> I have some reason to beleive that as the community gets larger, and Lojban
> skill gets greater, that either I will come to be able to teach the logical
> part of the language better, or someone else with better skills at those
> aspects will come along to write a second textbook or add to my basic one
> to improve the logical teaching.

I do feel that our logic debates do eventually lead to wider
understanding of the issues. For example, in recent discussions
of LE/LO, several people besides me & Jorge contributed, and all
understood the difference correctly, except Bob (and maybe you).
Also, it is my impression that likewise quite a few people
(not including you) understand the dual definitions of ni and jei.

> You can make the logical aspects of the langauge as perfect as you like, but
 if
> no one learns and uses them, it will be hard to prove that they work
> communicatively, nor even that the resulting design is a "language".
> The refgrammar, for all its apparent flaws to you, is more sophisticated
> than any textbook I could have written before it was done, and thus represents
> the limit to which the "logical language" goal can be reached at this present
> time.

I think the refgrammar is a magnificent achievement, given the
various powerful and conflicting constraints that the author
was under.

I am confident that we could proceed in refining the logical
aspects in a learnable and usable way. Not everyone in the
world would be able to learn and use them, but that's to be
expected with a logical language.

--And