[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 03:09 PM 1/11/03 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > >On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote: > > > Frankly I don't give a shit what has been discussed on jboske by 3% of the > > > Lojban community, while the rest were doing their best to tune out. > > > >The people who refuse to think about issues hardly have the same > >argumentation weight as those who do. > > Since they aren't interested in argumentation or its fruits, why would they > care? > > And it isn't that they refuse to think about issues, but rather that they > only want to think about issues in the context wherein they come up in > actual usage; they aren't interested in the theory of the language, and > they don't much care to define words in terms of their theoretical usages, > but rather in terms of how Lojbanists actually try to use them. Look at > how much debate there was over opening and closing files, which Robin > Powell got into, even though he disdains formal discussion as much as I do. > > >It behooves all involved to either > >establish their own opinions on basis of independent judgement, or to > >respect and follow the thoughts of those who have applied more effort. But > >to refuse to do the former, and disdain the latter, is indefensible. > > It is not a matter of effort, but a matter of assumptions. Immense effort > based on faulty assumptions is to others wasted effort. Some people find > jimc's guaspi interesting; I recognize that he put much thought into it, > but his assumptions are unlike Lojban's so I find it totally > uninteresting. I fear that the direction that And wants to take the > language is like jimc's, taking some aspects of the language as so > important that he departs from the core of the language. > > > > I think the answer is already determined, and the word will split in > > > two. But I am not interested in finding answers until the byfy is > > > constituted. I already know that one person is somewhat resentful that > > > byfy issues are being debated on jboske while the others await a forum that > > > is worth participating in. jboske isn't, for them. > > > >I find this unfair. jboske is where one particular subset or faction is > >getting its story straight, among themselves, prior to the BF. Would you > >rather it work out its internal affairs during BF time, distracting the > >other BF participants, and delaying the proceedings? > > I don't know what I'd rather they do, except that when I went looking for > history of tu'o, I found this whole mess of usage quantifying du'u and ka, > which was instigated by jboske discussion on the basis of abstract > analysis, and which now may be rejected by some or all of the same people > and a few different people on the basis of a different abstract > analysis. The net result is that it obscures the sort of usage I am > interested in for "usage deciding"; it precisely shows the problem of > prescriptive modification of the language as erroneous prescriptions spread > NOT because they make sense, but because "people who think more about these > issues" said it should be so. Your text makes no sense to me because I no longer see a real distinction between usage and jboske. You referred to the discussion of "open and closed" computer files. That was started by someone who is not a member of the jboske list, who wanted to figure out how to USE Lojban. Whenever any 2 Lojbanists discuss Lojban, that is jboske. If you followed Lojban discussions on the lists or on IRC, you would notice that most Lojban discussions arrive at that point! So, to prefer "usage deciding" to "jboske", all you can mean is that people should use the language without analysing what they're saying. This is hard when the prescriptions are unclear in certain cases. Note that most jboske focuses on cases of unclarity. Serious users need to study jboske if they want to get past Dick and Jane level -- and, as everyone but you sees with this gadri debate, even Dick and Jane could bear some scrutiny. So the only rational, meaningful position which you might mean is "I reject jboske when not done for the intent of usage". But even And Rosta falls within that category; he intends his work to be used, just not by him. Which means your position must get further modified, if it's going to make any sense, to "I reject jboske done by anyone who does not intend to achieve fluency". Yet you yourself have defended the participation on all sorts of level by jbonalka'e, and, you aren't working toward fluency in any sense. Try as I might, I cannot extract a coherent position. -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();