From biomass@shpich.com Sat Nov 30 11:38:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 19:38:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 3823 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 19:38:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 19:38:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 19:38:53 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IDS0-0006ZB-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:38:52 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IDRs-0006Yu-00; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:38:44 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.117.111.139] (helo=ultinet.org) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IDRl-0006Yl-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:38:37 -0800 Received: from avitallap (132.64.10.54) by pandora with [XMail 1.9 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:38:15 +0200 Message-ID: <006d01c298e2$87cec0e0$0300a8c0@avitallap> To: , Cc: References: <20021130135939.U47281-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Subject: [lojban] Re: Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojban made me think more clearly Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:37:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-archive-position: 2797 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: biomass@shpich.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Avital Oliver" Reply-To: biomass@shpich.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=131207876 X-Yahoo-Profile: mivmai From: "Invent Yourself" > On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Avital Oliver wrote: > > > The fact that english allows this to be said without having to notice the > > 'missing' "x1" would cause, assuming Sapir-Whorf, for people to believe that > > there are things that were "meant to be" even though they do not believe in > > 'God'. > > The SW appears here: do English speakers somehow anthropomorphize > non-static non-sentients more than speakers of a language that can express > the idea without relying on the above hack? What about Hebrew; does it too > try to force its speakers into using similar phrasing? In Hebrew the standard term for such quasi-homophibics is the word "amur", which normally translates as "supposed to be", although it is actually derived from the root alef-mem-resh, meaning "to say". I would assume the original meaning of "amur" in this context would be "is told to...". Thus, "amur" is actually a selbri of the form "x1 told x2 to do x3", where normally the x1 is not used (it is actually akward and many people would not even realize how to access x1). The sentence "Homosexuals aren't supposed to be" would be represented as , or in Hebrew, "GVARIM AMURIM LO LISHKAV IM GVARIM". So, to make things short, Hebrew has just the same kind of flaw, and similar to 'supposed to', it also does not allow for easy accessing of the sentient intender. Oh, and the same goes for "Information wants to be free" and "Objects want to fall downwards". > In this month's issue of New Scientist there is a cover story about the > comeback of SW thinking in defiance of the Chomskian hegemony. Perhaps > their website (ostensibly http://www.newscientist.com/) will feel like > working again by the time you read this mail. Wow. I'm guessing Lojban isn't reffered to there, though. If SW is coming back to relevance, does this mean Lojban might become academically interesting/important? -Avital.