Re: lojban dialectology

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> Let's create a new language NOT called Lojban (Ninjbo?), that IS allowed to
> evolve quite freely, with no looming threat of baseline to choke it off.
...
> This is NOT a proposal for a schism.  Maybe we could have an informal rule
> that encourages people to post some text in standard lojban proportional to

I'm not sure something like that would work, though. I want to learn to use
Lojban, and most of the interesting discussion is about the current Lojban.
For example, how to say "ago" or "away" in Lojban is controversial, but I
wouldn't call using or not using {za} and {va} for this a new language.
If another simpler or better form emerges, people may want to use the new
form, but until then, I will feel free to use that within standard Lojban,
because I need it. The same with the discusion about le/lo or lo/loi. It is
just a matter of understanding what is there, I don't see that a parallel
language would be any help, because I can't use it one way in one language
and another in the other. And's fi-fa-fu "dialect" is no dialect, either,
it is all perfectly valid Lojban.

I'm not interested in major reform, either. My five proposals are really
quite minor extensions (ignoring X5). There have been already more than
thirty such proposals by John Cowan and nobody has had to do any relearning
for that. The only one that relates to actual use is "stag-bo" as a sumti
connector, which I really think is needed in usage, because I have
experienced the need. The others concern a part of the language that nobody
ever uses, so they don't constitute any kind of problem. They just
facilitate learning by eliminating exceptions.

I'm going back to Buenos Aires very soon, and I will be out of net access
for some while, so you all will be spared my excessive posting. Hopefully
Ninjbo will not have evolved so much by then that I won't recognise it. :)

Jorge