[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick: > The more time I spend fighting fires, people, the less time I get to > document usage of mo'i.. > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:58:35 +0100 > > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email> > > Subject: RE: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do > > what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: > > antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) > > > > Jordan: > > > It makes your conservatism seem less kneejerk & unconsidered than > > other people's > > I know what you mean, And (you explain it further down), but this is an > unfair characterisation Okay, yes -- I concede that. Such is the cleverness of every Lojbanist, everyone's position is principled & has a decent rationale. Still, you, having, as BF-tsar, to serve the two gods of Conservatism and Formalism, suffer most from the effects of conservatism. E.g. the gadri system is a pile of incoherent shite, it could be fixed easily by redoing it from scratch, but no, the people who have half learnt the pile of incoherent shite & believe they have learnt something worth knowing insist that the fix be done by bodging -- with the utmost difficulty & agony -- the pile of incoherent shite into something less incoherent. But do these people do the hard work themselves? Do they fukk. > >> In one sense, perhaps. In another sense it doesn't, since I want > >> to have a language that is both stable and more formal than natural > >> languages. Failing on either count fails the whole thing > > Jordan, you are officially on my team. Thank you But if only the requirement for stability were imposed only after the language was complete. Currently we have a half-built language, with no design for unbuilt half, but none of the already built part can be demolished or altered except under the most stringent conditions, which do not include the betterment of the eventual completed edifice. Sorry for the ranting. I have to blow off steam whenever I get involved with Lojban. You can just ignore it; there's no need to placate me or to point out the reasons why most others feel differently. > > That's not how the labels are applied! The labels pertain to one's > > attitude to change (in the prescribed/baseline element of the > > language). It is somewhat orthogonal to the formalist vs > > naturalist/organicist > > dichotomy. Each of the four categories > > defined by these two dichotomies contain some members of the Lojban > > community > > Crucial insight by Jorge on the wiki > > > But the return of Nick has I think driven the community > > as a whole in conservative formalist direction, whereas is was > > formerly more naturalist > > And is perceptive as usual, and my opinions on the preceding naturalist > direction, as expressed by Bob, are well known. While I have the BPFK > gig, that is the direction I'm steering it in > > Avowedly, it was in order to accommodate both constituencies in Lojban. > Now it is not impossible that down the track And will leave Lojban for > LoCCan3, and take others with him; neither he or I are calling for it, > but it can happen. But I am no longer primarily concerned with > accommodating reformists, as an end in itself. It's for the good and > welcome if it does help the two (or four) camps stay in the language, > but that's not my primary aim. I am committed to bolstering the formal > aspect of Lojban, *because it is the right thing for the language* The way I have come to see things, the vast majority of Lojbanists want a language that is as stable as possible but logically sound (even though they leave it to others to ensure that it is logically sound, and will blithely speak a logically unsound language so long as they don't realize they're doing so). Lojban will be the language these people want. There is no practical means of changing this, and no decent moral justification for denying these people the language they want. LoCCan3 is a fundamentally different project from Lojban, though a true scion of the Loglan project. Regardless of whether people ever leave Lojban for LoCCan3, it is not that different from people leaving Lojban for Klingon, Esperanto or Hungarian. [....] > > You seem to be saying that we need an entirely new gadri to avoid > > making > > existence claims everywhere. If that's what you believe, it's probably > > time to check your premises, because I think you are alone in that > > interpretation, although you cannot be blamed for misunderstanding the > > gadri! > > xod, I know you've never accepted my explication of intensions, and > needing a doctor, but the case for a new gadri (or something) has been > made expressly for that reason: it was And's Unique. John's > modification was that the Unique need not always exist, but... I'd > rather not get back into that yet It's premature to point this out, but by the end of the Great Storm of 2002, Unique had transmogrified into Kind, which ought therefore to be the starting point for when we take up these issues afresh. > > Message: 5 > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:33:53 +0100 > > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email> > > Subject: RE: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do > > what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: > > antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) > > > Anyway, this aside, there seems to me to be a marked discrepancy > > between the numbers of people who have an interest in Lojban -- > > even quite an active interest -- and the much smaller number of > > people who delve into its formal aspects. I don't really > > comprehend why the many members of the larger group who don't > > belong to the smaller are so interested in Lojban, though their > > interest is very real and not at all superficial > > This is a valid point, and one that has come up in past flamewars: > first, to Bob, "why a logical language if you're not interested in > logic", and then, on jboske, "if the Great Unwashed don't want to know > about logic, why do they get to decide the language design?" > > Let me relay a comment Robin.CA made to me while I was at his place. As > you know, Robin vehemently refuses to join this list. After repeating > this to me with his customary vehemence, he added something like: "I > want to be clear: I'm glad someone is working on these problems. I just > don't want it to be me." > > And this I think is the point. The Great Unwashed(tm) want a logical > language, same as us, but can't or won't follow the interminable > argling. *Which is perfectly OK*. We, the Logicians, can explicate the > logic to them, can attempt to bolster the logic within the confines of > language stability, and can help deliver that to them. As long as we > don't talk over their heads, and exercise due care, we have their > support. Even if they flame us whenever these issues come up on the > main list. Robin's repeated this position several times this year, and > I respect it Lojbanistan is just like the Western democracries. The Great Unwashed wield their self-interested vote, and they vote to raise their standard of living by feeding parasitically off the labours of the few, and dictating the terms under which this is done. (Not that Robin could ever be accused of indolence, of course.) --And.