[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Xod: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > But only two Lojbanists have come > > up with sustained and relatively coherent (-- coherent enough > > to be debated, at least) explicit accounts of these gadri -- Jorge > > and me > > That's right. The rest of us are using them and understanding each other > perfectly well IMO, a basic premise of jboske is that whether people use x and understand each other perfectly well is largely irrelevant to jboske. We know from the study of natlang that ordinary people have no trouble understanding each other even when what they say is very different from what they mean. (People with impaired theory-of-mind faculties, e.g. autistics, are less good at this, because the ability heavily replies on being able to guess how the other person thinks.) So being understood is not relevant to the question of "what does this sentence mean?". Likewise for usage, while not completely irrelevant, usage may be inconsistent, illogical, ambiguous, etc. etc., and hence incompatible with certain fundamental properties of the Lojban design. Maybe if we had a large corpus of Lojban text we could run up a KWIC concordance on lo'e and check whether usage has conferred upon it an explicable meaning. I hope it goes without saying that I acknowledge that not all Lojbanists are lojbanologists: some are Naturalists, and I wouldn't wish to deny them their pleasures. --And.