fundamentalism: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replace - "jbocre: ([L-Z])" to "$1")
m (fixed typo: herecy -> heresy)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The following is formulated by [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]], and reflects his opinions; I am happy to revise it if people think it mischaracterises or trivialises issues.
{{se inspekte/en}}''Fundamentalism'' is a value held, orthogonally to [[hardliners|hardlinerism]], which states that the Lojban [[baseline|baseline]] (where it is unambiguous and has not been overwhelmingly trumped by usage) is inviolable, and attempts to revise it through proposal (or even, in extreme cases, through usage) are unwelcome.


A value held, orthogonally to [[hardliners|hardlinerism]], which states that the Lojban [[baseline|baseline]] (where it is unambiguous and has not been overwhelmingly trumped by usage --- ''ka'' being a counterexample) is inviolable, and attempts to revise it through proposal (or even, in extreme cases, through usage) are unwelcome.
The label ''fundamentalism'', while jocular and alluding to schools of literalist thought, is actually intended as an allusion to the ''Fundamento de Esperanto'', the [[Esperanto]] counterpart of the [[baseline|baseline]], which has served as a similar rallying point in that language's history.


[[Jay Kominek|Jay Kominek]] has a statement pretty close to this view.
The antonym is ''tinkering'' or ''heresy''.


The label ''fundamentalism'', while jocular and alluding to schools of literalist thought, is actually intended as an allusion to the ''Fundamento de Esperanto'', the Esperanto counterpart of the [[baseline|baseline]], which has served as a similar rallying point in that language's history.
However, people who dislike the baseline may still choose to adhere to it, and shouldn't be conflated with those who think the language must evolve unfettered by any baseline (which is actually pretty much [[Lojban Central|Lojban Central]]'s official position).


The antonym has not yet been devised, and should not be devised hastily; people who dislike the baseline may still choose to adhere to it ([[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] has a statement in the works close to this, I believe), and shouldn't be conflated with those who think the language must evolve unfettered by any baseline (which is actually pretty much [[Lojban Central|Lojban Central]]'s official position.)
===Counterexamples===
* '''ka''' is an example of a word overwhelmingly trumped by usage.


* Right after a statement close to that, however, [[And Rosta|And Rosta]] says "... I am in favour of anything that subverts the baseline ...".  Can we use an antonymn along the lines of "saboteur" zo'o?  [[Jordan DeLong|Jordan DeLong]] believe [[Lojban Central|Lojban Central]]'s position is a bit closer to one of the baseline ruling until there are enough speakers (at level of fluency greater than any current speakers have) to allow a more natural (very slow) language evolution. --mi'e [[jbocre: .djorden.|.djorden.]]
===Discussion===
 
* [[.djorden.|.djorden.]]
Like I said, please feel free to comment on any misstatements.
** Right after a statement close to that, however, [[And Rosta|And Rosta]] says "... I am in favour of anything that subverts the baseline ...".  Can we use an antonymn along the lines of "saboteur" zo'o?  [[Jordan DeLong|Jordan DeLong]] believe [[Lojban Central|Lojban Central]]'s position is a bit closer to one of the baseline ruling until there are enough speakers (at level of fluency greater than any current speakers have) to allow a more natural (very slow) language evolution.
 
* [[Jay Kominek|Jay:]]
----
** Thats a reasonable, though heavily abbreviated of my actual position. I am, however, willing to entertain changes to the semantics which are pushed through usage. (Of course, to convince me of a meaningful amount of usage, you'd have to write at least a novella with your usage... Didn't say it'd be easy. :)
 
* [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion:]]
Thats a reasonable, though heavily abbreviated of [[Jay Kominek|my actual position]]. I am, however, willing to entertain changes to the semantics which are pushed through usage. (Of course, to convince me of a meaningful amount of usage, you'd have to write at least a novella with your usage... Didn't say it'd be easy. :) --[[Jay Kominek|Jay]]
** Oh, I'd say 'semantic change unwelcome' is an extreme flavour of fundamentalism. As in, heavy duty [[hardliners|hardliner]] fundamentalism -- more hardliner than I'm prepared to go, too. But on some semantic issues, I can see some (possibly including me) saying "no, you can't start using that meaning, it's against the baseline." More of an issue for cmavo than gismu, of course.
 
* As a result of the former paragraph, if someone resists a usage rather than a proposal that potentially violates the baseline, particularly where the baseline is at its quishiest (gismu [[place structure|place structures]]), are they being a fundamentalist - or insane?
Oh, I'd say 'semantic change unwelcome' is an extreme flavour of fundamentalism. As in, heavy duty [[hardliners ardliner|hardliners ardliner]] fundamentalism -- more hardliner than I'm prepared to go, too. But on some semantic issues, I can see some (possibly including me) saying "no, you can't start using that meaning, it's against the baseline." More of an issue for cmavo than gismu, of course. -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]].
** [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
 
*** probably the latter...
----
 
As a result of the former paragraph, if someone resists a usage rather than a proposal that potentially violates the baseline, particularly where the baseline is at its quishiest (gismu place structures), are they being a fundamentalist --- or insane? -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]], probably the latter...

Latest revision as of 21:39, 5 October 2016

Fundamentalism is a value held, orthogonally to hardlinerism, which states that the Lojban baseline (where it is unambiguous and has not been overwhelmingly trumped by usage) is inviolable, and attempts to revise it through proposal (or even, in extreme cases, through usage) are unwelcome.

The label fundamentalism, while jocular and alluding to schools of literalist thought, is actually intended as an allusion to the Fundamento de Esperanto, the Esperanto counterpart of the baseline, which has served as a similar rallying point in that language's history.

The antonym is tinkering or heresy.

However, people who dislike the baseline may still choose to adhere to it, and shouldn't be conflated with those who think the language must evolve unfettered by any baseline (which is actually pretty much Lojban Central's official position).

Counterexamples

  • ka is an example of a word overwhelmingly trumped by usage.

Discussion

  • .djorden.
    • Right after a statement close to that, however, And Rosta says "... I am in favour of anything that subverts the baseline ...". Can we use an antonymn along the lines of "saboteur" zo'o? Jordan DeLong believe Lojban Central's position is a bit closer to one of the baseline ruling until there are enough speakers (at level of fluency greater than any current speakers have) to allow a more natural (very slow) language evolution.
  • Jay:
    • Thats a reasonable, though heavily abbreviated of my actual position. I am, however, willing to entertain changes to the semantics which are pushed through usage. (Of course, to convince me of a meaningful amount of usage, you'd have to write at least a novella with your usage... Didn't say it'd be easy. :)
  • nitcion:
    • Oh, I'd say 'semantic change unwelcome' is an extreme flavour of fundamentalism. As in, heavy duty hardliner fundamentalism -- more hardliner than I'm prepared to go, too. But on some semantic issues, I can see some (possibly including me) saying "no, you can't start using that meaning, it's against the baseline." More of an issue for cmavo than gismu, of course.
  • As a result of the former paragraph, if someone resists a usage rather than a proposal that potentially violates the baseline, particularly where the baseline is at its quishiest (gismu place structures), are they being a fundamentalist - or insane?