Lojban prescriptivism?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>Subject:      Re: reply: (1) veridicality

And:
>I think you're half right & half wrong about LLG having prescriptivist
>leanings (I don't know about TLI, since the Loglanists list is notable
>only for its perpetual silence).  You're half wrong because I think
>prescriptivist is the last thing LLG would wish to be:  there is a vivid
>streak of liberalism in lo lojbo.  Witness how often Lojbab says "let
>usage decide", without prescribing what the outcome of usage's decision
>ought to be.
>
>But you're half right because it does appear that some lojbo prime
>movers fail to adequately distinguish between the grammar (which cannot
>but be prescribed, else there would be no grammar, and hence no
>language) and usage.  Thus there are prescriptions concerning usage,
>notably the 'literality' requirement pertaining to 'ko', 'lo' and what
>have you:  these are social rather than grammatical rules, but I believe
>they arise not through any authoritarianism on the part of LLG but
>through a failure to realize that they are social rather than
>grammatical rules.  Once language users start to flout the rules, I
>doubt that any lojbo prime mover will start breathing fire, cracking the
>whip, writing outraged letters to Juhi Lobypilno or the like.

There is no clear bound between grammar as you use the term, and usage.
Some parts of the grammar are fully prescribed, like the morphology, and
the permitted syntax.  Some aspects are semi-prescribed, like the rules
governing interpretation of go'i/go'a and ri/ra.

Also, do not think that because I am "liberal" on usage questions, that
I am without opinion.  And I am also a Lojban user (sometimes - it seems
altogether too rare these days).  I thus will have as much voice as any
other Lojban user on the direction that the language takes.

Lojban users tend towards the anti-authoritarian in belief and action.
But I think this will lead to more solid prescription in the absence of
authority than we could develop by actually having an authority.  First
of all - there is no "Authority" to be "anti", and that blunts the force
of anti-authoritarianism as an organizational/political question.  But
as a form of individual expression, anti-authoritarianism usually
amounts to contrariness, and contrariness in language is itself a very
powerful authoritarian force.

For exanmple, in addition to all of the prescriptions, there is a strong
social force towards literalism in usage, coupled with a great love of
word play among lo lojbo.  One result is that non-literal usages tend to
be responded to literally and carried to their illogical conclusion.
Creative misunderstanding of someone's "erroneous" usage to subtly
enforce the language prescription is perfectly allowed in the Lojban
"ethic", and in fact, the social force to be "correct" and "exact" in
Lojban, in spite of its lack of authoritarianism, has caused Nick
Nicholas and Mark Shoulson to comment on how much harder it is to
comfortably write in Lojban than in Klingon (e.g.  Hamlet translations).

I will do my best after publishing books to minimize my "Authority" over
the language, but I will probably feel little compulsion against
"failing to understand" (or willfully muisunderstanding) someone who
lightly "breaks the rules" in interacting with me.

mi na djuno tu'a la'e <<lo'u juhi lobypilno le'u>> .iku'i mi djica loi
xatra be la'e <<lu ju'i lobypli li'u>> zo'o

lojbab
===

Actually, I think II will use more restraint.  Intentional misunderstanding
is fine for light-hearted occasions, but can turn into nasty wars when someone
chooses to find it unfunny.  But I suspect that the occcassions when people
are defying the taboo on literalism will tend to be cases where a light-hearted
cry of "malglico" or "malrarna" will effectively get the point across.

lojbab