Received: from mail-qc0-f190.google.com ([209.85.216.190]:50033) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UWngj-0006zN-RV for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:30 -0700 Received: by mail-qc0-f190.google.com with SMTP id j2sf2174538qch.17 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=1jb4ELh32kKgtahscO/d/io3Ez/b3/K5CEt2xK9f+Uw=; b=qOOBnt9udFbdCJSePsZnIr1xHa+ugjdr6d0X6ym/3NQzzT/LmJUeKB+v4bXEHvvDgQ vJhK79QR04kUfZm16fqX1YqnrA3BzADKPY8UP+i8V/WOvdGEqAkeSCbN38x1PmwjoQL8 mKoRMJ+0+ixqMgAPvMsZVNi8yJiyPyDqj3l5eXZ8Ccl+kbH+VjCPV1+P3h2b42enWUEg Lz+wL9ixpqm5MAGMZCgAcab6T9aNozNZ19Kb6q/EOlt48rUICXDdBj9D1HUzMLqPGt2L yGumAfoOosI3LhCEjOYSIoviTzb51PXm4cUPbJ016XFgAyidRRB2NUOsBRm4jfa4EhgS SgBw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=1jb4ELh32kKgtahscO/d/io3Ez/b3/K5CEt2xK9f+Uw=; b=jN6LMfYqTfFjCuKi/3rt246BeTgcxCBTMsyszn/75AxMzROOeseudCQF5GwOx9y4lp 0N3uHpU+W+zivk5+I07V8JvmDz147Dy5yB2E4bRZN76pY52tzzckkv7gg00wcj1fnp9e OrvLeo0CzKs0DPdjD6AC4PLhnEBl5BA6PrdIULXCLQYIadNVJ5/X7BT2/MEamWONGl7b c64ikio39wTZnKn47/s9//UFTRQW4MNCm3s54+GwQTDmYrzFLoiX4IoiXvNHRuM/J0rX TAMcxS7Zy/Wl+iFD7NQlNaZm2MEWxj7LZs5WZeiA5gk4Zs47eLE+lWseHiPwHogGH0Dp b1RQ== X-Received: by 10.50.128.105 with SMTP id nn9mr146851igb.17.1367240406667; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.6.19 with SMTP id w19ls352762igw.9.gmail; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.112.105 with SMTP id ip9mr1298111igb.1.1367240404907; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:03 -0700 (PDT) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: Subject: [lojban] Languages (other than Lojban) that are structurally incompatible with Standard Average European MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_135_5943798.1367240403193" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_135_5943798.1367240403193 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This is the continuation of discussing exotic languages (natural, artificial ones, unusual styles in those etc.) and whether they are incompatible with Standard Average European languages. Simply put what we are discussing here is "Can language influence thought?" and *if this question is correct*. We also search for specific examples of how languages can be constructed unlike those that most of us speak. This discussion is not necessarily relevant to Lojban (although resume from it could be applied to Lojban later). Tags for this discussion (separated by comma): Sapir Whorf hypothesis, linguistic relativity, Sapir, Whorf, snow in Eskimo, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Chomsky, Pinker, Wierzbicka, Lakoff, ... On Sunday, April 28, 2013 2:16:36 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:27:20 AM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote: >> >> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 22:26:34 la gleki wrote: >> > In {la .alis. cu remna} Alice can refer to several people as well. >> > Referential use of {le} can help if two participants of the >> conversation >> > have agreed for which object to use it however even in that case there >> > might be misunderstanding ( what if speaker A called an apple {le >> plise} >> > but the speaker B unlike the speaker B noticed several apples around). >> > >> > Other brivla in Lojban are all properties. >> > I guess in {lo plise cu xunre} {xunre} is a property, right? >> > >> > Then for me the following raising doesn't mean much. >> > {mi viska lo plise noi xunre} >> > {mi viska lo xunre} >> > >> > And of course lo plise = zo'e noi plise. >> > >> > (If we for the first time in our life see an orange we might call it >> {ti >> > plise ga'a mi'a}, so {plise} is also a property). >> > >> > So I just can't see why Lojban is SAE. >> >> SAE sensu stricto includes Romance, Germanic, and various other European >> languages. SAE sensu lato includes, as far as I can see, all of >> Indo-European, >> Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Semitic, and probably other families. Either way, >> it's >> defined by properties of the language, not by belonging to certain >> families. >> > > > As far as I remember [sei u'i mi morji jenai vedli ;) ] the first written > record in human history was a Sumerian record that said "A new divine Sun > has appeared in the sky". We can assume that it was a supernova star (I > don't remember in what constellation it is located now). > > This is a funny fact because then the human written history starts with > the fact of dealing with property language and actually extending unique > objects to properties. > > So what, Sumerian is also SAE and property-lang at the same time like > English? What's the point? > That inhabitants of Tlon *had* to use only properties in their speech? > But as I show everything can be seen as properties. > > >> Lojban is definitely not SAE s.s. I think it is not SAE s.l. either, but >> appears to be because most Lojbanists are native speakers of SAE >> languages. If >> we raised Lojban speakers for whom e.g. "le blabi cu mlatu" or "se mlatu >> le >> blabi" were no stranger a construction than "le mlatu cu blabi", Lojban >> as >> they spoke it would not be SAE s.l. >> >> I'm not sure I understand "things with holes and things to plug the >> holes", >> but unlike all the language families I listed above, Lojban has no >> adjectives. > > > > isn't NOI or even tanru adjectives? > > >> >> Lojban does have nouns, but their use is severely restricted compared to >> SAE >> languages, common nouns being generally expressed by verbs. >> > > > Really? You mean that only KOhA, {zo'e}, {da}, cmene etc. are nouns? > I've never had any problems with {lo ... ku} even though it is a > derivation of zo'e + NOI. > > brivla are always verbs. (mlatu = to-be-a-cat etc.) > > >> > I have the following case unsolved: >> > The classic contrast between an SAE language and a process one >> is >> > the name of a wet spot in the Grand Canyon area. The Anglos call it >> > Weeping Spring, a thing with a property. The Hopi call it Whiting >> > Downward, a process. >> > >> > How to say "I'm near the whiting downward" in this language then? >> > I guess in Lojban we can't say {mi jibni lo nu farlu}. How can i be >> near a >> > process? I can only be near some atoms taking part in that process. >> > How do the Hopi solve this problem? >> >> I'd say it in Lojban "mi jibni le mo'ini'a blabi" (or "la mo'ini'a blabi" >> since it's a name). > > > > Exactly. But {le blabi} is a noun. > > I don't know Hopi. I assume you do not mean "mo'ini'a >> merlanu". >> > > Yes, I want Hopi's solution, not lojbanic cheating. > On Monday, April 29, 2013 5:39:31 AM UTC+4, lojbab wrote: > > John E Clifford wrote: > > This is all getting very confusing to me; I either don't get the point > > of various comments or I don't see the relevance of them to what I think > > is the topic at hand (which long ago ceased to be about learning Lojban > > -- we ought to change the title). Let try to sort some things out for > > my own benefit. > > SAEss is a late derivative (and probably the result of a > > misunderstanding) of SAEsl, a term Whorf apparently coined. It happens > > that all of the ss languages are also sl, which reenforces the > confusion. > > The fact that Lojban has adjectives and verbs and common nouns -- or > > doesn't -- is largely irrelevant to the question whether it is a SAE > > ("thing"), property, process or sensation language. > > lo, loka lopu'u, and loli'i should be able to express these, > respectively (and we have a few other abstractors as well. Whether they > semantically match the targeted languages is less clear. > > I guess you might argue that sticking lo on a property, process, etc > makes it grammatically a "thing", but I think that is an artifact of > translating the expressions into English, where sumti become grammatical > nouns or gerunds. Nora has always looked at brivla as being more > verblike than any other part of speech, with the various cmavo acting on > the grammatical roles but not really changing the Lojban semantics > (though again translating the semantics into English tends to invoke > English parts of speech). > > I am still remembering my efforts at translating Nootka, wherein I > expressed entire sentences as complex tanru, never using any sumti at all. > > > It can (more or > > less by design) reproduce the effects of all sorts of languages, but to > > do so, it must convert properties or processes or sensations into > > things. > > No. cmavo convert brivla into sumti or mexso or ..., but none of those > are necessarily "things". > > lojbab > > > -- > Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org > President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_135_5943798.1367240403193 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the continuation of discussing exotic languages (natural, artificia= l ones, unusual styles in those etc.)
and whether they are incompatible= with Standard Average European languages.

Simply = put what we are discussing here is "Can language influence thought?" and if this question is correct.
We also search for specific exa= mples of how languages can be constructed unlike those that most of us spea= k.

This discussion is not necessarily relevant to = Lojban (although resume from it could be applied to Lojban later).

Tags for this discussion (separated by comma):
Sapir W= horf hypothesis, linguistic relativity, Sapir, Whorf, snow in Eskimo, Wilhe= lm von Humboldt, Chomsky, Pinker, Wierzbicka, Lakoff, ...

On Sunday,= April 28, 2013 2:16:36 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:


On Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:27:20 AM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:=
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 22:26:34 la gleki = wrote: 
> In {la .alis. cu remna} Alice can refer to several peo= ple as well. 
> Referential use of {le} can help if two particip= ants of the conversation 
> have agreed for which object to use = it however even in that case there 
> might be misunderstanding = ( what if speaker A called an apple {le plise} 
> but the speake= r B unlike the speaker B noticed several apples around). 
> = ;
> Other brivla in Lojban are all properties. 
> I guess = in {lo plise cu xunre} {xunre} is a property, right? 
> > Then for me the following raising doesn't mean much. 
> {m= i viska lo plise noi xunre} 
> {mi viska lo xunre} 
>=  
> And of course lo plise =3D zo'e noi plise. 
>&nbs= p;
> (If we for the first time in our life see an orange we might cal= l it {ti 
> plise ga'a mi'a}, so {plise} is also a property).&nb= sp;
> 
> So I just can't see why Lojban is SAE. 
<= br>SAE sensu stricto includes Romance, Germanic, and various other European=  
languages. SAE sensu lato includes, as far as I can see, all of I= ndo-European, 
Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Semitic, and probably other fam= ilies. Either way, it's 
defined by properties of the language, not= by belonging to certain families. 


As far as I remember [sei u'i mi morji jenai vedli ;) ] th= e first written record in human history was a Sumerian record tha= t said "A new divine Sun has appeared in the sky". We can assume that it wa= s a supernova star (I don't remember in what constellation it is located no= w).

This is a funny fact because then the human wr= itten history starts with the fact of dealing with property language and ac= tually extending unique objects to properties.

So = what, Sumerian is also SAE and property-lang at the same time like English?= What's the point?
That inhabitants of Tlon *had* to use only pro= perties in their speech?  But as I show everything can be seen as prop= erties.


Lojban is defi= nitely not SAE s.s. I think it is not SAE s.l. either, but 
appears= to be because most Lojbanists are native speakers of SAE languages. If&nbs= p;
we raised Lojban speakers for whom e.g. "le blabi cu mlatu" or "se ml= atu le 
blabi" were no stranger a construction than "le mlatu cu bl= abi", Lojban as 
they spoke it would not be SAE s.l. 

I= 'm not sure I understand "things with holes and things to plug the holes",&= nbsp;
but unlike all the language families I listed above, Lojban has no= adjectives.


isn't NOI or even tanru ad= jectives?
 

Lojban doe= s have nouns, but their use is severely restricted compared to SAE languages, common nouns being generally expressed by verbs. 


Really? You mean that only KOhA,= {zo'e}, {da}, cmene etc. are nouns?
I've never had any problems = with {lo ... ku}  even though it is a derivation of zo'e + NOI.
<= div>
brivla are always verbs. (mlatu =3D to-be-a-cat etc.)


> I have the followin= g case unsolved: 
> <quote>The classic contrast between an= SAE language and a process one is 
> the name of a wet spot in = the Grand Canyon area.  The Anglos call it 
> Weeping Sprin= g, a thing with a property.  The Hopi call it Whiting 
> Do= wnward, a process.</quote> 
> 
> How to say "I'= m near the whiting downward" in this language then? 
> I guess i= n Lojban we can't say {mi jibni lo nu farlu}. How can i be near a 
= > process? I can only be near some atoms taking part in that process.&nb= sp;
> How do the Hopi solve this problem? 

I'd say it in = Lojban "mi jibni le mo'ini'a blabi" (or "la mo'ini'a blabi" 
since = it's a name).


Exactly. But {= le blabi}  is a noun.

I don't know Hopi. I assume you do not mean "mo'ini'a 
merlanu".&n= bsp;

Yes, I want Hopi's solution, not l= ojbanic cheating.

 

On = Monday, April 29, 2013 5:39:31 AM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
John E Clifford wrote: 
> This is all getting very confu= sing to me; I either don't get the point 
> of various comments = or I don't see the relevance of them to what I think 
> is the t= opic at hand (which long ago ceased to be about learning Lojban 
&g= t; -- we ought to change the title).  Let try to sort some things out = for 
> my own benefit. 
> SAEss is a late derivative = (and probably the result of a 
> misunderstanding) of SAEsl, a t= erm Whorf apparently coined.  It happens 
> that all of the= ss languages are also sl, which reenforces the confusion. 
> Th= e fact that Lojban has adjectives and verbs and common nouns -- or > doesn't -- is largely irrelevant to the question whether it is a SAE&= nbsp;
> ("thing"), property, process or sensation language. 
=
lo, loka lopu'u, and loli'i should be able to express these, 
r= espectively (and we have a few other abstractors as well.  Whether the= y 
semantically match the targeted languages is less clear. 
I guess you might argue that sticking lo on a property, process, etc&= nbsp;
makes it grammatically a "thing", but I think that is an artifact = of 
translating the expressions into English, where sumti become gr= ammatical 
nouns or gerunds.  Nora has always looked at brivla= as being more 
verblike than any other part of speech, with the va= rious cmavo acting on 
the grammatical roles but not really changin= g the Lojban semantics 
(though again translating the semantics int= o English tends to invoke 
English parts of speech). 

I= am still remembering my efforts at translating Nootka, wherein I 
= expressed entire sentences as complex tanru, never using any sumti at all.&= nbsp;

> It can (more or 
> less by design) reproduce t= he effects of all sorts of languages, but to 
> do so, it must c= onvert properties or processes or sensations into 
> things.&nbs= p;

No.  cmavo convert brivla into sumti or mexso or ..., but no= ne of those 
are necessarily "things". 

lojbab 

-- 
Bob LeChevalier    loj...@lojban.org &nb= sp;  www.lojban.o= rg 
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.&nbs= p;

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_135_5943798.1367240403193--