lojban and PR

[jongausib]

coi ro le lojbo prami
I've been thinking a lot about the future of lojban since I started to
learn it this summer.

I really think that lojban has great potential of becoming the most
significant transnational language; to be a cultural neutral language
in contexts where global issues matters rather than national-local
culture, ijo to use as a scientific language etc. And I think that
there's a need among the people of the world to have something as a
common global platform to gather around as the world becomes both more
diversified and more unified. Something which is the language of the
civic society, not just of those who got most symbolic, political and
economic power.

But this is not going to happen unless lojbanists make it happen. So I
think we have to organize ourselves better, making strategies of how
we can market/promote lojban efficiently so more people get to know
that the language exists. And a very important concern: if lojban ever
becomes succesful, so how can we prevent it from being swallowed by
economic interests? Who got the patent? Who is/are able of selling it?

I'm new as jbopli, maybe you have already discussed the visions and
future goals of lojban a lot. Anyway, there are some things I have
noticed. The lojban.org website isn't very welcoming nor clear. I
think that's the first impression of lojban new potential jbopli will
make. The design could be much better (but I've figured out that
there's too much to be done for Mr Powell alone). If I could wish just
some improvements that would be a project list (with different actual
projects in lojban, for example chemistry nomenclature project,
translations in progress, news in the lojban community etc) and a
userlist (where perhaps you may register your skill resources, for
example if you're an expert of birds, which language-skills you have,
professional experience of translation or programming, etc).

And I'm sorry, but I also think the logo would have to be more
attractive. Even the simple logo of Toki pona is a far more positive
and attractive logo: en.tokipona.org.

uikipedias doesn't look so good either. Couldn't you just use
templates from for example the swedish or spanish wikipedias (I like
the design of those versions better than the english in fact). I've
also been thinking of copy the lexical structure of other wikipedias.
That would result in a lot of empty pages for now, but at least that
would be a good structure to start with. Because jbo.uikipedias is
going to be the scientific standard in the future - iepei!?;)

I'm neither a skilled jbopli or a webdesigner, so unfortunately I
can't contribute much, except with my opinions.
My own goal right now is to be able to speak and write lojban fluent,
and that will take a while I think. Next goal for me is to start
marketing and teaching lojban here in Sweden. And I feel really
serious about this.

So any ideas how the lojban movement could be more outgoing, organized
and professional?

mu'o mi'e jongausib.

[Muhammad Nael]

I can't help much here; but here's what I have. While I wholeheartedly agree with your general terms, I believe that revamping the language first before taking such big steps should be a priority... Arabic lived for more than 500 years as a poetry (and day-to-day) language with its people before it became the language of science for centuries more (after al-Qur'an of course)... My point is, we should take this a transitional stage towards a more sophisticated, easier to use and more culturally neutral language... I still don't like that Lojban only used six base languages; I'd rather it be 100% a priori language...

Good day and good luck,

MN

[.arpis.]

There are other issues too.

{mu'a}

The language is not finalized yet (as evidenced by the {ji'i} 200 discussion about {zo'e}).
The language is not self-hosting (many definitions of words, especially gismu, rely on another language, often English, to be understood)
The learning material is out-dated (old morphology rules, xorlo, dot side, etc).
The people who are actively working on the language (of whom there are few) are doing so in their spare time.

As for your question of "Who's got the patent?", international IP law is even more complicated than any single nation's, but in the US, first of all, the language would be protected by a copyright (if at all), and (although I don't understand all the details) I think the answer to your question is "The Logical Language Group, Inc.".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/iDBw0dhhYZUJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Sunday 23 October 2011 13:11:31 .arpis. wrote:
> The language is not finalized yet (as evidenced by the {ji'i} 200
> discussion about {zo'e}).

Most of that discussion is incomprehensible to me, and probably to most
Lojbanists.

> The language is not self-hosting (many definitions of words, especially
> gismu, rely on another language, often English, to be understood)

A language can never be exactly defined in terms of itself, so that's
generally not a problem. I have no problem with "rozgu" or "djacu"
or "lanme". I do have a problem with "jbari", as it's defined in terms of
English "berry", which is polysemous. One definition includes strawberries
and raspberries and blueberries but excludes tomatoes and oranges; the other
does the reverse.

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[.arpis.]

However a language can be defined in terms of itself with the addition of some real-world knowledge, or almost entirely in terms of itself.

I would like to see {mu'a} in the definition of {xunre} things like, "one of the three primary colors in the additive model, the other two being {pelxu} and {crino}", "the color of an iconic rose", "the color of blood", "a color", {mu'a cu'i}.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Matt Arnold]

jongausib,

Most of the people who are centrally active in the language do not
want it to become a transnational language. I, for one, see no
benefit, and see a great deal of harm that would do.

However, I support improving the popularity of Lojban as a hobby. A
larger speaker base would lead to a lot more fun.

Muhammed:

Completely revamping Lojban means making a different language. They
did that to Loglan, and called it Lojban. You will avoid confusing
people, if you make up a word other than Lojban, and refer to your
project by that name. Currently you make it sound as if you want to
work with the existing language's supporters to undo their existing
language, which is unlikely.

-Eppcott

[John E Clifford]

Hard line to draw between making up a new language and getting clear about the
one we have. The history of the latter enterprise, for example, has often
looked like the former, and, to a lesser extent, conversely. I suppose
intention is, if not all, the major criterion.

[Muhammad Nael]

Matt:

 The word 'Lojban' has a meaning in the language itself... As I've given my opinion that even the word list should be redone, I make it clear that I did not mean that Lojban should be changed forever with the current version buried... I meant that it should be used as a 'template' for a third version of the logical language... It took about 30 years to make Loglan, another 15 to get the final face of Lojban we see today built upon Loglan... And I imagine it would take 5 years to make LoCCan-3 or whatever it could be...

---

Clifford:

Hard line to draw between making up a new language and getting clear about the 
one we have.  The history of the latter enterprise, for example, has often 
looked like the former, and, to a lesser extent, conversely.  I suppose 
intention is, if not all, the major criterion.

 

 I needed 2 reads to get this! And I could understand Bilbo easily, no offence.

[.arpis.]

You're being unreasonably optimistic if you think it will only take 5 years for a new language based on lojban to get anywhere.

First of all, many people will not move (relearning vocabulary is hard and takes lots of time for little benefit).
Second of all, the value of a new vocabulary is, in my eyes (many jbopre probably agree with me) minimal.
Third of all, you'll have a hard time convincing many people that going through the growing pains of another language is so worth it that it eclipses the small inconvenient idiosyncrasies of lojban.
Fourth of all, there are still questions that lojban hasn't answered that need to be answered, like the precise meaning of {ma kau} and whether or not it's valid outside of a {du'u}.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/5ThYTTY7w4EJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Muhammad Nael]

I'm being reasonably optimistic thinking it'd take less than 5 years to make a Lojban successor... I'll have a week off in the next few days, so I won't debate the new-vocab issue now...

I never said that current users should switch, only that they should work on a better platform for possible near-future adherents.

I study linguistics as a hobby, but I can't agree or disagree with the specific issue you cited. In any case, Lojban-2, Loccan-3, Loghnat,... etc should be built in a pyramid model taking into account all the points ye have raised countless times in which I've no doubt; ie. there should be simpler 'layers' of the same language that wouldn't need the learner to know the language perfectly before he can use it minimally!

I may not have made my point very clear; I apologize but I'm very busy today.

Regards,

MN

[Luke Bergen]

Is it just me, or does "making a better lojban" come up every 6 months or so?

Not to derail your thread/enthusiasm NH, but I swear to god, if we had as many people learning lojban as we have trying to redesign it / design loccan, our user base would be huge

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/jZGKrMwjkSoJ.

[Muhammad Nael]

That maybe, I can't say...

As for me, although I'm technically very young, I consider myself of he current version... So if I go to any of this, it'd be for future users... I know that I'll be working on a Lojban-Ithkuil merging in the near future in my spare time; at the same time, I know I'll have a long, serious time with Lojban in a week or so. So, I do look forward to a new Lojban even though I haven't gone deep into it while sticking to the truly unique thing we have at hands now...

Also, who's NH?

Salaman,

MN

-OFF

[Luke Bergen]

Sorry, stupid phone keyboard.  I meant "MN" as per your signature :)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ukZncTqnyTwJ.

[And Rosta]

Luke Bergen, On 24/10/2011 14:36:

> Is it just me, or does "making a better lojban" come up every 6 months or so?
>
> Not to derail your thread/enthusiasm NH, but I swear to god, if we had as many people learning lojban as we have trying to redesign it / design loccan, our user base would be huge

Isn't it to be expected, the situation you describe? The two largest groups of Lojbanists are those who are attracted to CLL Lojban because it is well-documented and has a user-community and those who are attracted to Lojban because they're interested in a logical language and the Lojban/Loglan community is the only community of people with that interest.

--And.

[Luke Bergen]

I didn't say it was a bad thing.  It does get a bit tedious, but there are worse things.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[And Rosta]

Luke Bergen, On 24/10/2011 19:31:

> I didn't say it was a bad thing. It does get a bit tedious, but there are worse things.

My point was not that you were saying it was a bad thing (altho you were implying that it was, I feel), but rather you were, in tones of mild astonishment, describing something so unastonishing, so natural and so much to be expected that it was not worth describing.

--and.

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:06 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Luke Bergen, On 24/10/2011 14:36:
>
> Is it just me, or does "making a better lojban" come up every 6 months or so?
>
> Not to derail your thread/enthusiasm NH, but I swear to god, if we had as many people learning lojban as we have trying to redesign it / design loccan, our user base would be huge
>
>
> Isn't it to be expected, the situation you describe? The two largest groups of Lojbanists are those who are attracted to CLL Lojban because it is well-documented and has a user-community and those who are attracted to Lojban because they're interested in a logical language and the Lojban/Loglan community is the only community of people with that interest.
>
> --And.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com <mailto:loj...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com <mailto:lojban%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/lojban?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en>.

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[gleki]

The problem with jbari is worth discussing.

Either we need to change the definition of e.g. "grute" (which may be is against the rule)

or make those two gismu obsolete in favor of newly created gismu that combines the meanings of the two.

So it's not replacing Lojban but replacing part of it's vocabularly

[Michael Turniansky]

ma'upa

[Sebastian Fröjd]

ok,
just to summarize the discussion here.
It seems that none of you think that it's a good idea to missionize lojban around the world right now (even if I would like to do just that here in Sweden when my lojban-skills are better).
Instead you would like to improve the language itself first. Some of you would like to make huge changes (like Muhammed), that would make it a totally different language. I don't see why really, since I think lojban generally has a great grammatical structure. Others (including me) would like to make less significant changes, for example to revise some of the word definitions (especielly to be consistent about name of species, colours, scientifical and metaphysical concepts etc).


Matt Arnold:

"Most of the people who are centrally active in the language do not
want it to become a transnational language. I, for one, see no
benefit, and see a great deal of harm that would do."

ok, I don't agree since I only see advantages with a global language. Not everyone like the fact that english is the dominant language in the world. I think that a lot of people in the world associate english with the language of their oppressors (or at least something negative), not the language of the global civic society.

Also, the english grammar is very unlogical and I myself feel very uncomfortable expressing things in english, since it often doesn't sounds quite right what I'm writing or saying, even if it may be logical and comprehensible.

Anyway, I think it's ok to have different opinions about this. The lojban community has the language as the common platform, and should avoid to make decisions about other things like the socio-cultural usages of the language or political agendas. But that doesn't hinder individual jbopli like myself to view lojban as a potential transnational language.

I agree with Pierre Abbat that some of the discussions here are incomprehensible (hey I don't even speak english as my native language as you probably can see).

But if we're going to improve the language, I still insist that we have to be more organized. Who will remember what has been said in this forum 6 months ago? I think it would be better to have different projects clearly listed on the lojban web site: grammatical-logical projects, projects to make templates for constructing new name of species, terminology in different scientific fields, metaphysical concepts (philosophy, religion, new age etc), definitions of colors etc etc. And to specify how many persons is engaged in each project, the current status and so on. That would be really nice!

mu'o mi'e jongausib

2011/10/25 Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Michael Turniansky]

    Now, wait a minute.  No one said that you shouldn't "missionize lojban around the world".  I would love to have more lojban users.  But the point is that lojban (and Loglan) were never intended to be an IAL.  That's not just what they're about.  The fact that the vocabulary and gammar are equally hard or easy to learn  by everyone, no matter what their natural language background, is a minor part of the design, not its major focus.  We aren't out to bring peace and brotherhood among all mankind.  That's Esperanto's goal.  If you want a global language, though, there already exists one: http://snipurl.com/2dj87f The point about English (or Globish) is that the amount of it that's truly "English" these days is miniscule.  It's grammar has been streamlined, its vocabulary is glommed from all over the world, and constantly growing everyday, and it is spoken by almost 2 billion people.  I doubt lojban will reach that level (well, until the world population is in the quadriillions, anyway).  So missionize away, just be a realist about it.  Not everyone will have the success of a Ben-Yehuda (after 125 years, approx. 6 million native speakers of modern Herbew, and another 3 million or so secondary speakers), or even a Zamenhof (after the same amount of time, less than 1000 native speakers of Esperanto and no more than 2 million total).

 

              --gejyspa

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday 27 October 2011 05:14:58 Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> ok,
> just to summarize the discussion here.
> It seems that none of you think that it's a good idea to missionize lojban
> around the world right now (even if I would like to do just that here in
> Sweden when my lojban-skills are better).
> Instead you would like to improve the language itself first. Some of you
> would like to make huge changes (like Muhammed), that would make it a
> totally different language. I don't see why really, since I think lojban
> generally has a great grammatical structure. Others (including me) would
> like to make less significant changes, for example to revise some of the
> word definitions (especielly to be consistent about name of species,
> colours, scientifical and metaphysical concepts etc).

I'd like to see more Lojbanists whose first language isn't Indo-European. The
claim comes up frequently when there's a technical discussion that Lojban is
Standard Average European. It's obvious from its grammar that it's not:
*All European languages have grammatical number. Lojban doesn't.
*Most European languages have accusative alignment. Basque has ergative
alignment. Lojban has an indefinitely long sequences of argument places,
which occurs in no natural language as far as I know.
*All European languages have nouns (including common nouns), verbs, and
adjectives, of which normally only verbs show tense. Lojban has no adjectives
and uses verbs, which show tense, for common nouns and adjectives as well as
verbs.
I think that the appearance of SAE comes from most Lojbanists being native
speakers of European languages, and if we got more Lojbanists whose native
language have evidentials, tensed adjectives, and other non-European
features, the appearance would disappear.

I would like to see a few changes, such as:
*drop the dimension place from "mitre" and express it some other way which
would also work with "gucti"
*add x2 to "remna"
*allow BIhI to have only one GAhO (there is a construction that would have to
be disambiguated).

> I agree with Pierre Abbat that some of the discussions here are
> incomprehensible (hey I don't even speak english as my native language as
> you probably can see).

It's not the language that makes it incomprehensible, it's the references to
L-sets, Chierchia, Skolem functions, and other things that one hears about
only in certain university courses, which I haven't taken.

Pierre
--
sei do'anai mi'a djuno puze'e noroi nalselganse srera

[.arpis.]

Who will remember what has been said in this forum 6 months ago?

xorxes. {zo'o ru'e}

For the most part, I agree that lojban would benefit from better organization.

The problem is that organizing is boring, organizing takes time, and organizing takes authority. Who would be in charge of rallying the troops? Who would the troops be? How would they (both the troops and the organizer) be selected?

If I were to tell you that one of the things _you_ can do to help greatly is to help Robin with CLL v1.1,

(relevant posts:
https://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_thread/thread/64bdb4e796957d8d/b2efa55c3ed86111?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=robin+git#b2efa55c3ed86111
https://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_thread/thread/8e9bb19d63d97c87/e4a04575799cff0d?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=robin+git#e4a04575799cff0d

I'm not sure if he still needs help, but it still serves as an example)

would you?

[John E. Clifford]

SAE is a Whorfian term and has very little to do with the specifics of word class and paradigms. It has more to do with the metaphysical view of the language. SAE languages are based on things doing stuff and having properties. Other languages are based on processes going on or masses dividing or kinds manifesting themselves. The issue in which all the unfortunate weird stuff turns up is more or less an effort to see what sort of language Lojban is and to what extent it can mirror the other kinds. As spoken first (or so) order logic, it is clearly SAE in its most Aristotelian form, some say it can be viewed as a mass/ kind language as well.

Sent from my iPad

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday 27 October 2011 12:52:52 John E. Clifford wrote:
> SAE is a Whorfian term and has very little to do with the specifics of word
> class and paradigms. It has more to do with the metaphysical view of the
> language. SAE languages are based on things doing stuff and having
> properties. Other languages are based on processes going on or masses
> dividing or kinds manifesting themselves. The issue in which all the
> unfortunate weird stuff turns up is more or less an effort to see what sort
> of language Lojban is and to what extent it can mirror the other kinds. As
> spoken first (or so) order logic, it is clearly SAE in its most
> Aristotelian form, some say it can be viewed as a mass/ kind language as
> well.

Could you give examples of sentences showing these other kinds of languages?

I found the Wikipedia page. Going down the lists:
1. Definite and indefinite articles ✓
2. relative clauses are postnominal but don't have inflected pronouns ×
3. periphrastic perfect: there are no participles ×
4. predicates to encode experiencers ✓
5. passive participle ×
6. anticausative verbs × I think, since the transitive is derived
with "-gau, -ri'a, -zu'e"
7. dative external possessors ×
8. negative indefinite ✓ though it's two words
9. particle comparative × (there is "me'a" but it's not the usual)
10. equative adverbial ×
11. verb inflected for subject ×
12. differentiation between intensifier and reflexive ✓

Further features:
1. verb-initial yes/no ×
2. comparative inflection × it's a compound
3. A, B, and C ×
4. comitative and instrumental ×
5. second/two ×
6. no alienable/inalienable distinction ×
7. no clusivity distinction ×
8. no productive reduplication ✓
9. topic focus intonation word order × (focus can be expressed by word order,
but topic is expressed by prenex)
10. SVO ✓
11. only one gerund ×
12. neither-nor ×
13. phrasal adverbs - not sure what, "still" is a single word
14. replacement of past by perfect ×

The third list: The first six items, which are all phonetic, all ✓. Morphology
is both suffixing and prefixing and is not fusional at all. There is no
morphosyntactic alignment.

Pierre

--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[.arpis.]

{.ua nai sai}

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[John E Clifford]

Errh. The Wikipedia page for what, exactly? That is, what is the list for?
Surely not SAE, since many such languages lack properties here checked and have
those left unchecked (I take 'x' as a "no"). Are the checks for Lojban? And
what do these things mean (especially "A, B, and C")? Morphosyntactic
alignment? I just see the relevance here. Look at Whorf.

Pierre

--

[John E Clifford]

Lojban for "WTF"?

---

From: .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 27, 2011 8:57:14 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] SAE was lojban and PR

[.arpis.]

Well, {.ua nai} is glossed as "confusion" and {sai} is the intensifier, so yeah, kinda. Although it lacks the surprise that "WTF" conveys.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday 27 October 2011 22:23:52 John E Clifford wrote:
> Errh. The Wikipedia page for what, exactly? That is, what is the list
> for? Surely not SAE, since many such languages lack properties here checked
> and have those left unchecked (I take 'x' as a "no"). Are the checks for
> Lojban? And what do these things mean (especially "A, B, and C")?
> Morphosyntactic alignment? I just see the relevance here. Look at Whorf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European
"A, B, and C" is contrasted with "A and B and C", which is the construction in
Lojban. SAE languages have most of these properties, but not necessarily all.
English lacks the dative external possessor, but both French and Spanish have
it (including when the possessor is the same as the subject, e.g. "je me lave
les mains"). English also, unlike German, French, and Spanish, uses the
reflexive also as an intensifier.

Pierre

--
The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
>
> 2. comparative inflection × it's a compound

One that strongly mimics an inflection though. I'd consider giving it
a tick here.

> 13. phrasal adverbs - not sure what, "still" is a single word

I think "phrasal" here means "phrase modifying", so Lojban might get a
tick here, since tags are phrase modifying.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[John E Clifford]

I see I should have used "allegedly" more freely in that note, especially since
this is a "SWH is false" week. I'm not sure what a sentence from each such
language would do, but I can cite the standard languages of the various types.
The plug-and-socket types are shown by SAE languages, Chinese is usually given
as a mass language (individuals as slices of the bulk), Trobriand Island as kind
(whole present in all its 'manifestations') is usual. Whorf's choices for flux
languages are Menominee and Hopi. Another type of language often talked about,
but rarely (if ever) seen, is the language which takes the world to be mere
sense data popping into and out existence instantaneously (maybe a kind of flux
language).
As for missing the class, this stuff is often not in classes (I had courses from
both Leonard and Goodman and never saw any calculus of individuals) but in stray
reading (xorxes is a pro at this, thank God, so the stuff does get down to us
fairly rapidly). There used to be a course on Whorf at UCLA, though, whence
many of these jokes (although with a Scandanavian like Harry Hoijer it is hard
to be sure which ones are the jokes).
As for characteristic instances, the Pidjin "one piecee man" does for masses,
"gavagai" for kinds, and for processes, the Hopi name for Weeping Springs is
literally "flowing downward whitely". Whether there is anything to all this
remains the question (Hoijer's last lecture "Any way you slice it, it's still
baloney").

----- Original Message ----
From: Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu>

To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 27, 2011 8:47:36 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] SAE was lojban and PR

Pierre

--

[Pierre Abbat]

On Saturday 29 October 2011 10:42:57 John E Clifford wrote:
> I see I should have used "allegedly" more freely in that note, especially
> since this is a "SWH is false" week. I'm not sure what a sentence from each
> such language would do, but I can cite the standard languages of the
> various types. The plug-and-socket types are shown by SAE languages,
> Chinese is usually given as a mass language (individuals as slices of the
> bulk), Trobriand Island as kind (whole present in all its 'manifestations')
> is usual. Whorf's choices for flux languages are Menominee and Hopi.
> Another type of language often talked about, but rarely (if ever) seen, is
> the language which takes the world to be mere sense data popping into and
> out existence instantaneously (maybe a kind of flux language).

"lo xamgu be lo trobriando cu xamgu lo trobriando vau po'o"
That was all I knew about Trobrianders until I found out that the island is in
the Kula ring (a ring of islands near PNG where jewelries called mwali and
soulava are traded in opposite directions). I know nothing of the Trobriander
language, Menominee, or Hopi, and just a few smatterings of Chinese.

> As for missing the class, this stuff is often not in classes (I had courses
> from both Leonard and Goodman and never saw any calculus of individuals)
> but in stray reading (xorxes is a pro at this, thank God, so the stuff does
> get down to us fairly rapidly). There used to be a course on Whorf at
> UCLA, though, whence many of these jokes (although with a Scandanavian
> like Harry Hoijer it is hard to be sure which ones are the jokes).
> As for characteristic instances, the Pidjin "one piecee man" does for
> masses, "gavagai" for kinds, and for processes, the Hopi name for Weeping
> Springs is literally "flowing downward whitely". Whether there is anything
> to all this remains the question (Hoijer's last lecture "Any way you slice
> it, it's still baloney").

What pidgin is that? I know a fair bit of Tok Pisin, in which one
says "wanpela man". "tu klok" and "tupela klok" are both valid Tok Pisin, but
not synonyms; they mean "two o'clock" and "two clocks" respectively. It does
have plural number, but not marked on nouns; the plural article "ol" (which
also means "they") marks a noun as plural.

[John E. Clifford]

The examples given are from paralinguistic folklore (the 43 words for snow didn't happen to come up). The pidgin involved is reputedly Anglo-Cantonese from the 19th century. I don't know any of these languages either, so I have to rely on Whorf, although the Trobriand stuff is probably from Malinowski. Tok Pisin would perhaps do as well as Chinese, but I don't know enough about to say. (I assume the determine 'pela' is from English "fellow", more or less). Sad to say, except for being better at Chinese and maybe actually knowing a flux language, this is pretty much what people with opinions on SWH build on.

Sent from my iPad

[And Rosta]

The term "SAE" is kind of ambiguous, as is half-evident from the Wikipedia page. On the one hand it is a kind of 'metaphysics' implied by the semanticses of the SAE languages. On the other hand it is a sprachbund characterized inter alia by the features Pierre was discussing. I don't think it's a given that Lojban is SAE in either sense; it may be, but the onus is on the person claiming it is to provide the evidence.

--And.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> just to summarize the discussion here.
> It seems that none of you think that it's a good idea to missionize
> lojban around the world right now (even if I would like to do just that
> here in Sweden when my lojban-skills are better).

I'm not sure what you mean by "missionize".

We certainly are interested in promoting new Lojban use, and even better
when it is non-native English speakers. We are holding off on starting
anything major as an organization, in part because the byfy work needs
to be complete, and we need more tools (and probably texts) for Lojban
learners, so that if a big push produced a big response, we would be
prepared to deal with it.

As an organization, we aren't especially promoting "Lojban as an
international language" in the sense that many people intend Esperanto,
but we have no problem with individuals interested in such a thing doing
so on their own, or with like-minded Lojbanists.

> Instead you would like to improve the language itself first.

Any and all official language changes must go through the byfy process,
and there isn't much sentiment for any changes that haven't already seen
experimental usage. (See for example the discussion of the "dot side")

> Some of you
> would like to make huge changes (like Muhammed), that would make it a
> totally different language. I don't see why really, since I think lojban
> generally has a great grammatical structure. Others (including me) would
> like to make less significant changes, for example to revise some of the
> word definitions (especielly to be consistent about name of species,
> colours, scientifical and metaphysical concepts etc).

If we choose to redefine the words whenever someone thinks they have a
better definition, the words will never stop changing.

If you want a word with a different definition that the one that is
there, make a new word - preferably a lujvo.

> Matt Arnold:
>
> "Most of the people who are centrally active in the language do not
> want it to become a transnational language. I, for one, see no
> benefit, and see a great deal of harm that would do."
>
> ok, I don't agree since I only see advantages with a global language.

There may be advantages, but the body of actual Lojban speakers
seemingly aren't that interested in it. In general, people interested
in the international language concept have tended to gravitate towards
Esperanto, Interlingua and other such languages whose communities are
entirely focused on that aspect of language.

Some have turned to Lojban, and we welcome such Lojbanists. But there
aren't many for whom that is their main interest - or at least those who
are interested do not talk about that interest very much.

> But if we're going to improve the language, I still insist that we have
> to be more organized.

If you want to improve the language, first become a skilled user. Then
use the language to gain experience as well as credibility.

As far as organization, byfy is the sole organization to consider
changes, and right now it is a benevolent dictatorship run by byfy jatna
Robin Powell, because too many people say that they want to improve the
language definitions, but in several years, very few actually DO what is
needed (which starts with solidifying the description of the status quo.)

>Who will remember what has been said in this forum
> 6 months ago?

That is why we retain archives.

I think it would be better to have different projects
> clearly listed on the lojban web site: grammatical-logical projects,
> projects to make templates for constructing new name of species,
> terminology in different scientific fields, metaphysical concepts
> (philosophy, religion, new age etc), definitions of colors etc etc. And
> to specify how many persons is engaged in each project, the current
> status and so on.

There is only one such project with official standing, and that is byfy.
You should be able to find a great deal about it on the lojban.org
website.

There is no intent to recognize outside efforts to change the language.
We can't stop such things, and won't even try to do so, but there is
only one official language, and that is what LLG promotes.

lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

[John E. Clifford]

Well, I certainly don't think that Lojban is SAE in the Sprachbund sense; as Pierre points out it has very few of the characteristic features. On the other hand, the metaphysical case seems fairly easy -- or did until Mr. Broda showed up again. The whole plug and socket nature of a Lojban bridi screams it. But now that there are other interpretations which need to be considered, I suppose we will have to wait a while. (but I still think it is and the other interpretations are just wrong. This is not, of course, what JCB wanted ( and I did tell him he didn't have what he wanted), but a metaphysics-free language is not possible under SWH. Nor, I think is one that treats all possibilities equally easily. We can do mass/kind pretty easily in Lojban, though it always seems periphrastic. I am less sure about flux or sense-data languages, mainly because I really don't know how they work at all ( I miss things).

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 30, 2011, at 15:34, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:

> The term "SAE" is kind of ambiguous, as is half-evident from the Wikipedia page. On the one hand it is a kind of 'metaphysics' implied by the semanticses of the SAE languages. On the other hand it is a sprachbund characterized inter alia by the features Pierre was discussing. I don't think it's a given that Lojban is SAE in either sense; it may be, but the onus is on the person claiming it is to provide the evidence.
>
> --And.
>

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, I certainly don't think that Lojban is SAE in the Sprachbund sense; as Pierre points out it has very few of the characteristic features.  On the other hand, the metaphysical case seems fairly easy -- or did until Mr. Broda showed up again. The whole plug and socket nature of a Lojban bridi screams it.

If I'm reading the plug and socket metaphor correctly, isn't Lojban
mostly socket (BRIVLA) with very few underived plugs (KOhA)?

> But now that there are other interpretations which need to be considered, I suppose we will have to wait a while. (but I still think it is and the other interpretations are just wrong.  This is not, of course, what JCB wanted ( and I did tell him he didn't have what he wanted), but a metaphysics-free language is not possible under SWH.  Nor, I think is one that treats all possibilities equally easily.  We can do mass/kind pretty easily in Lojban, though it always seems periphrastic.

A mass/kind language would be an all plugs language, with sockets
being derivative?

> I am less sure about flux or sense-data languages, mainly because I really don't know how they work at all ( I miss things).

Wouldn't Lojban fit better as one of these? Assuming the
classification is all plugs vs. plugs and sockets vs. all sockets, it
seems that Lojban falls squarely in the last one, with a rather simple
device ("lo") for turning sockets into plugs.

[John E. Clifford]

(1) Like FOL, Lojban has an infinite number of featureless plugs: variables, ko'a series, etc. And, as you have pointed out, all descriptions are initially a featureless {zo'e} to which a predicate is applied.
(2) The socket terminology doesn't carry over well to masses and kinds, because it is essential to sockets (properties, etc.) that they have holes in them, are unsaturated, as Frege said. Masses and kind appear to be complete in themselves,but also with features so that can be known (unlike individuals in the earlier version). Similarly, of course, individuals are indeed derivative, a chunks or projections of the real stuff. It appears, haeceity aside, that these things may interpenetrate one another according to some rules or tinge one another and that what we call individuals (if we do at all) arise from slice or projections from such contaminated portions, as it were.
(3) As noted, the plug and socket line is not the beginning of classification, but merely a catch phrase for one view. And, plugs and sockets are correlative; you can't have a functioning system without both.
Sent from my iPad

On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:29, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, I certainly don't think that Lojban is SAE in the Sprachbund sense; as Pierre points out it has very few of the characteristic features. On the other hand, the metaphysical case seems fairly easy -- or did until Mr. Broda showed up again. The whole plug and socket nature of a Lojban bridi screams it.
>

> (1)If I'm reading the plug and socket metaphor correctly, isn't Lojban

> mostly socket (BRIVLA) with very few underived plugs (KOhA)?
>
>> But now that there are other interpretations which need to be considered, I suppose we will have to wait a while. (but I still think it is and the other interpretations are just wrong. This is not, of course, what JCB wanted ( and I did tell him he didn't have what he wanted), but a metaphysics-free language is not possible under SWH. Nor, I think is one that treats all possibilities equally easily. We can do mass/kind pretty easily in Lojban, though it always seems periphrastic.
>

> (2)A mass/kind language would be an all plugs language, with sockets

> being derivative?
>
>> I am less sure about flux or sense-data languages, mainly because I really don't know how they work at all ( I miss things).
>

> (3)Wouldn't Lojban fit better as one of these? Assuming the

> classification is all plugs vs. plugs and sockets vs. all sockets, it
> seems that Lojban falls squarely in the last one, with a rather simple
> device ("lo") for turning sockets into plugs.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

[Sebastian Fröjd]

Hi lojbab,
thanks for answering my questions. I think you did it in a very clear way, so now I understand what to expect of the lojban organization and the community. Therefore I'm not going to insist further on what I suggested here. Probably better for me to just focus on becoming a more skilled user and then start to teach lojban in Sweden in the future.

 I'm a bit frustrated though then I think that some semantics are too vague and inconsistent, especially when it comes to colors, name of species and chemical nomenclature and similar.
I understand the benefits of broad/vague meanings of gismu, but sometimes I think the gismus are too vague.
Like in the discussion about colors. Some cultures without distinctions between brown and purple probably define {bunre} and {zirpu} as synonyms, but then I'm talking colors with someone I would like to be sure that for example brown is brown and purple is purple. My suggestion is still therefore to use a technical reference of color as a set point, and instead be pretty vague about the range.

When it comes to name species I usually interpret gismu as x1 is of some species within a given genus, which is vague enough I think. If you would like to be more precise, you could use tanru or lujvo (also for refering to higher order). Prefererably by translating the latin name when feasible (latin names are unfortunately often totally unlogical), and otherwise use the latin name as a fu'ivla (as a swedish I don't like when english-speaker using fu'ivlas and lujvo based on english glossary).

I really don't want to make the language more tight and make it more normative than it already is, but somehow I would like to use consistent system of scientific terminology for them who are interested in using lojban that way. I just don't know how to put this. Since I'm not skilled in lojban and doesn't understand the more theoretical discussions here, and also because the fact that I understand english far more better than my actual usage of it, I feel pretty frustrated. I think I just have to let it go right now and concentrate on communication instead. But at the same time I would also like to invent lujvo when I have use for it, and then again I think consistency is a good thing.

-jongausib

2011/10/30 Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG <loj...@lojban.org>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
Probably better for me to just focus on becoming a more
> skilled user and then start to teach lojban in Sweden in the future.

Excellent!

> I understand the benefits of broad/vague meanings of gismu, but
> sometimes I think the gismus are too vague.
> Like in the discussion about colors. Some cultures without distinctions
> between brown and purple probably define {bunre} and {zirpu} as
> synonyms, but then I'm talking colors with someone I would like to be
> sure that for example brown is brown and purple is purple.

One solution is lujvo with a reference, e.g chocolate brown, sky blue.

The fact that cultures have differences in how and what colors they
distinguish is one reason why we kept them vague.

> My suggestion
> is still therefore to use a technical reference of color as a set point,
> and instead be pretty vague about the range.

skari could take among other things, a wavelength in x2, or some other
technical reference

> When it comes to name species I usually interpret gismu as x1 is of some
> species within a given genus, which is vague enough I think.

We avoided being specific here as well, but some of the gismu expressly
call for a species in x2.

> I really don't want to make the language more tight and make it more
> normative than it already is, but somehow I would like to use consistent
> system of scientific terminology for them who are interested in using
> lojban that way.

To get into technical and scientific terminology that varies from
colloquial usage ("varied" can include being especially precise),
fu'ivla are in order.

> I just don't know how to put this. Since I'm not
> skilled in lojban and doesn't understand the more theoretical
> discussions here,

I am moderately skilled and I don't understand them either, even while
being called "Founder" zo'o

> and also because the fact that I understand english
> far more better than my actual usage of it, I feel pretty frustrated. I
> think I just have to let it go right now and concentrate on
> communication instead. But at the same time I would also like to invent
> lujvo when I have use for it, and then again I think consistency is a
> good thing.

Inventing lujvo is a good thing, especially if you think about place
structures when doing so. Consistency isn't really possible for ad hoc
coinages. Try to be consistent with your own standards; others will do
so with theirs. Eventually, when there are multiple words proposed for
the same concept, we can consider making choices (but we don't have to
do so even then). More important is that people be able to look up what
the word means if they cannot get the meaning from context+etymology.

In scientific writing, we tend to be more concerned with precision. On
the other hand, poets and others often invent new words which are in no
dictionary, and people still find the poems meaningful.