[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
cu'u la .and.
Could we, I wonder, agree that the BF takes an ultra-fundamentalist line? That way I can simply tune out of BF issues where I think the fundament is pooey, and thus stay sane. And by removing the ideological component from debates, everybody else might be able to stay a bit saner too. My intention would be to stick around in the community in the hope that much of it will become dissatisfied with Lojban Mark I and want to change to Lojban Mark II.
So you mean something like this: 0. "The fundament is arse." "Oh? What's wrong with it?" "X Y Z" "OK, let's make A into X-Y, introduce a cmavo for Y, and reject Z." "That's still arse." "Vote... Carried." "Fine. Work out it's arse on your own time."0.A. We work out it's arse, and make Lojban Mark II in 50 years. (What And wants) 0.B. We refuse to admit it's arse, there's no community Mark II, there is a formalist dialect that creeps towards Mark II but does not abandon sucky horrid backward compatibility (What I want) 0.C. Formalists tinker in a playpen, and everyone else ignores them (What several fundamentalists want)
OK, that I can live with. What I don't want is these scenarios: 1. "And? And, is the fundament OK here, IYHO?" "Sod off. You're making Microsoft Lojban, include me out." 2. "The fundament is arse." "You have no right to say anything. Die, mo-fo, die!" 3. "The fundament is arse." "Oh? What's wrong with it?" "W""Hm. W is very little used, we never got it anyway, and the book is contradictory on this. Vote... Carried."
"Nooo! Not a jot of CLL shall be changed! Die, mo-fos, die!"
I'm almost coming round to that point of view. But I'm not quite there yet, because most of the leading active Lojbanists are here in these discussions and are expressing revisionist sentiments. (And those who aren't here are known nonfundamentalists.) So I don't want to back away just when Progressivism seems as though it might be able to gain a critical mass.
Eh... I think you're in for a disappointment. There's people who want to be on the BPFK who don't want to be on jboske; and there's a lojban community (pisu'o) which will accept what the BPFK does as legitimate but not jboske.
That's the horror of jboske. Even if the three or four formalists butting heads reach a consensus after two months, they've still got to spend another year convincing all the naturalists and fundamentalists in the community. Nope, that's hopeless.
What you think you should be working towards is your decision, and I respect it. I recognise that it is near impossible to satisfy all the constituencies. But:
What you say is reasonable, and I wouldn't at all hold it against you if you felt that, now that things have become clearer, you don't want to lead the BF when it is constituted as a fundamentalist enterprise
Here, I maddeningly backflip yet again. Because it is weasel nature to do so. I don't want to lead the BPFK if it is a revisionist enterprise, any more than I want to lead it if it is "every jot every tittle" hard fundamentalist. (Which mean I have to accept lojbanmass as basic and substance/collective as subclasses.) Because I cannot accept relearning that much of the language, and I do not want the BPFK to generate something the community will reject.
So I want the impossible: both formalism and fundamentalism. Yes, I do want the impossible. It's either that or schism. pc, Jordan, and you have all raised the prospect. If I accede to it by not seeking out compromise, I betray the community. I shall not preside over schism.
As you know, if I could be sure that there is no chance of Lojban ever evolving into what I would like it to be -- a true realization of the formalist goals of the Loglan project -- then I would very happily walk away and get a large chunk of my life back. I don't want to be hanging around here as the mere propagator of aimless dissent.
Nor do I want to thwart Naturalists or those like Lojbab who want to see *a* loglan come to life, regardless of its merits from a formalist perspective. So like you I am very unsure about how to proceed.
I can't give either you or Bob everything you want. I just can't; no language will satisfy both of you. But you yourself have admitted: vote, and whatever dissatisfies the least number of people wins. Consensus means we try and nuke from the prescription stuff that is genuinely up in the air, and leave it to 'usage' --- where 'usage' must include 'formalist suggestions that people may wish to take up'. Sometimes that will be impossible, and if there is nothing to nuke (and gadri may or may not be like that)... then the fundies win. Sorry, but that's what I envisage.
-- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@hidden.email * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****