Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: cntrational <cntrational@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <3c8e6b44-5612-4d6e-afbc-5a802be088d6@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Lojban, restrictions, and thought
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_837_24874955.1401799786071"
X-Spam_score: -2.7
X-Spam_score_int: -26
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_837_24874955.1401799786071
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I read the welcome page for the Lojban MediaWiki, which essentially claims 
that natural languages "discourage other ways of thinking" and that Lojban 
frees them from these restrictions, enabling freer expression and thought. 
The purpose of this post is to prove that this is wrong and express my 
alternative theory instead.

Before we begin, I should note that while I'm not very good at Lojban or 
logic, that I'm decently well-read on linguistics (about to begin an MA in 
it later this month, in fact), enough to say that I know more about 
linguistics than the typical Lojbanist. My theories here are based on what 
I've read and though I am not an expert in linguistic cognition, I feel 
that my theories are not anything out of the ordinary.

The central question to consider is "what mechanism do languages affect 
thought by?". My view is that languages effect this by *restricting 
expression*.

To take an extreme example, consider the famous Kuuk Thaayorre language -- 
this language lacks egocentric directions like "behind" and "in front of" 
-- instead, they use cardinal directions, saying in effect "Watch out, 
there's an ant to the north of your foot." for "Watch out, there's an ant 
near your foot.". The Thaayorre people thus have a very powerful sense of 
direction, being aware of which directions are where at almost all times. 
Kuuk Thaayorre in essence *restricts *expression by denying you the ability 
to use egocentric directions, forcing you to use cardinal directions.

Notice that this is essentially the opposite view to that expressed by the 
LMW. The LMW claims that allowing more options, like, say, allowing both 
cardinal and egocentric directions would expand thought. But here we see 
the opposite: thought is affected by allowing *less *freedom of expression!

If you consider it, such restrictions permeate language. Consider, for 
example, the restriction (stretching the term a bit) that English divides 
consumption of food/drinks into "eat" and "drink" -- if you asked a regular 
English speaker, they would probably think of these two activities as being 
distinct.

But what if you spoke a language where common usage dictates "eat" and 
"drink" are both expressed as one word, say, "consume". "Eat" and "drink" 
would be specialized terms, and "consume" the generic term. A speaker of 
such a language would likely think of eat and drink as being two 
realizations of a single activity.

There is of course a third option, where "consume", "eat", and "drink" are 
all equally common. I'm not sure what speakers of such a language would 
think about boundaries between eating and drinking are.

Once again, we see that biases and alterations of thought are caused by 
restricting people to a certain option, leaving the other option as 
secondary or non-existent. My conclusion is  (and here we get to the main 
point) that if Lojban wants to truly affect and expand thought, *it must 
restrict expression*! And I argue that it has already done so!

Consider Lojban's lack of non-explicit metaphor (really a hiding away of 
metaphor than a true lack, but that's a different topic) -- this is often 
claimed by Lojbanists to result in clearer expression and such, but this is 
because Lojban effectively restricts free expression of metaphors in favor 
of being literalistic. Sure, there's {pe'a}, but it's rarely used in normal 
conversation -- in the same way "consume" is not commonly used in English 
in the same way "eat" and "drink" are. {pe'a} is secondary, leaving a 
Lojbanist effectively avoiding metaphors.

Metaphors are just one example out of the many restrictions Lojban places, 
both explicitly in grammar and implicitly by the speech-community. Lojban 
thus already has the potential to explore alternative routes of thought, 
but this is because it places restrictions on what you can say, not because 
it's a permissive language, but because it's a restrictive language. 
Hopefully I've convinced you of this, but regardless of what you think, I 
would like to hear your responses and thoughts.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_837_24874955.1401799786071
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I read the welcome page for the Lojban MediaWiki, which es=
sentially claims that natural languages "discourage other ways of thinking"=
 and that Lojban frees them from these restrictions, enabling freer express=
ion and thought. The purpose of this post is to prove that this is wrong an=
d express my alternative theory instead.<br><br>Before we begin, I should n=
ote that while I'm not very good at Lojban or logic, that I'm decently well=
-read on linguistics (about to begin an MA in it later this month, in fact)=
, enough to say that I know more about linguistics than the typical Lojbani=
st. My theories here are based on what I've read and though I am not an exp=
ert in linguistic cognition, I feel that my theories are not anything out o=
f the ordinary.<br><br>The central question to consider is "what mechanism =
do languages affect thought by?". My view is that languages effect this by =
<i>restricting expression</i>.<br><br>To take an extreme example, consider =
the famous Kuuk Thaayorre language -- this language lacks egocentric direct=
ions like "behind" and "in front of" -- instead, they use cardinal directio=
ns, saying in effect "Watch out, there's an ant to the north of your foot."=
 for "Watch out, there's an ant near your foot.". The Thaayorre people thus=
 have a very powerful sense of direction, being aware of which directions a=
re where at almost all times. Kuuk Thaayorre in essence <i>restricts </i>ex=
pression by denying you the ability to use egocentric directions, forcing y=
ou to use cardinal directions.<br><br>Notice that this is essentially the o=
pposite view to that expressed by the LMW. The LMW claims that allowing mor=
e options, like, say, allowing both cardinal and egocentric directions woul=
d expand thought. But here we see the opposite: thought is affected by allo=
wing <b>less </b>freedom of<b> </b>expression!<br><br>If you consider it, s=
uch restrictions permeate language. Consider, for example, the restriction =
(stretching the term a bit) that English divides consumption of food/drinks=
 into "eat" and "drink" -- if you asked a regular English speaker, they wou=
ld probably think of these two activities as being distinct.<br><br>But wha=
t if you spoke a language where common usage dictates "eat" and "drink" are=
 both expressed as one word, say, "consume". "Eat" and "drink" would be spe=
cialized terms, and "consume" the generic term. A speaker of such a languag=
e would likely think of eat and drink as being two realizations of a single=
 activity.<br><br>There is of course a third option, where "consume", "eat"=
, and "drink" are all equally common. I'm not sure what speakers of such a =
language would think about boundaries between eating and drinking are.<br><=
br>Once again, we see that biases and alterations of thought are caused by =
restricting people to a certain option, leaving the other option as seconda=
ry or non-existent. My conclusion is&nbsp; (and here we get to the main poi=
nt) that if Lojban wants to truly affect and expand thought, <b>it must res=
trict expression</b>! And I argue that it has already done so!<br><br>Consi=
der Lojban's lack of non-explicit metaphor (really a hiding away of metapho=
r than a true lack, but that's a different topic) -- this is often claimed =
by Lojbanists to result in clearer expression and such, but this is because=
 Lojban effectively restricts free expression of metaphors in favor of bein=
g literalistic. Sure, there's {pe'a}, but it's rarely used in normal conver=
sation -- in the same way "consume" is not commonly used in English in the =
same way "eat" and "drink" are. {pe'a} is secondary, leaving a Lojbanist ef=
fectively avoiding metaphors.<br><br>Metaphors are just one example out of =
the many restrictions Lojban places, both explicitly in grammar and implici=
tly by the speech-community. Lojban thus already has the potential to explo=
re alternative routes of thought, but this is because it places restriction=
s on what you can say, not because it's a permissive language, but because =
it's a restrictive language. Hopefully I've convinced you of this, but rega=
rdless of what you think, I would like to hear your responses and thoughts.=
<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_837_24874955.1401799786071--