Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c00::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3c8e6b44-5612-4d6e-afbc-5a802be088d6@googlegroups.com>
References: <3c8e6b44-5612-4d6e-afbc-5a802be088d6@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:57:21 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMKwHj3R=UZ0N2v4r-Qu0+GBSYnmuJdJzV+JUFKX2Am43jeGZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban, restrictions, and thought
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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=001a11c1641e50daf904faf23e43
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c1641e50daf904faf23e43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I would say either you misread that text on that page, or that the text on
that page is misleading. Since I've not read the page, I don't know which,
but I think I can safely assume the later. One of the purposes of Lojban is
to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which I'm sure I don't need to explain
linguistics major. I believe the author of that text was speaking about
that freedom of expression because of that.

Further, it doesn't matter how much or little freedom a language has. While
it is probably true that a speaker of a language which has no method of
egocentric directions thinks differently from a speaker of one that does,
that does not prove or disprove your hypothesis that restriction causes an
expansion of thought processes. Let's take this restriction of expression
to the extreme and say that the only "language" a peoples know consists of
the single word "ug". How much expansion of thought do you think this
people would have, being unable to communicate anything effectively?

Ug ug ug, ug ug. Ug ug ug ug ug, ug ug ug.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:49 AM, cntrational <cntrational@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>


-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

-- 
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.

--001a11c1641e50daf904faf23e43
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I would say either you misread that text on that=
 page, or that the text on that page is misleading. Since I&#39;ve not read=
 the page, I don&#39;t know which, but I think I can safely assume the late=
r. One of the purposes of Lojban is to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, whi=
ch I&#39;m sure I don&#39;t need to explain linguistics major. I believe th=
e author of that text was speaking about that freedom of expression because=
 of that.<br>
<br></div>Further, it doesn&#39;t matter how much or little freedom a langu=
age has. While it is probably true that a speaker of a language which has n=
o method of egocentric directions thinks differently from a speaker of one =
that does, that does not prove or disprove your hypothesis that restriction=
 causes an expansion of thought processes. Let&#39;s take this restriction =
of expression to the extreme and say that the only &quot;language&quot; a p=
eoples know consists of the single word &quot;ug&quot;. How much expansion =
of thought do you think this people would have, being unable to communicate=
 anything effectively?<br>
<br></div>Ug ug ug, ug ug. Ug ug ug ug ug, ug ug ug.<br><br></div><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at=
 6:49 AM, cntrational <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:cntrational@g=
mail.com" target=3D"_blank">cntrational@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I read the welcome page for=
 the Lojban MediaWiki, which essentially claims that natural languages &quo=
t;discourage other ways of thinking&quot; and that Lojban frees them from t=
hese restrictions, enabling freer expression and thought. The purpose of th=
is post is to prove that this is wrong and express my alternative theory in=
stead.<br>
<br>Before we begin, I should note that while I&#39;m not very good at Lojb=
an or logic, that I&#39;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 abo=
ut linguistics than the typical Lojbanist. My theories here are based on wh=
at I&#39;ve read and though I am not an expert in linguistic cognition, I f=
eel that my theories are not anything out of the ordinary.<br>
<br>The central question to consider is &quot;what mechanism do languages a=
ffect thought by?&quot;. My view is that languages effect this by <i>restri=
cting expression</i>.<br><br>To take an extreme example, consider the famou=
s Kuuk Thaayorre language -- this language lacks egocentric directions like=
 &quot;behind&quot; and &quot;in front of&quot; -- instead, they use cardin=
al directions, saying in effect &quot;Watch out, there&#39;s an ant to the =
north of your foot.&quot; for &quot;Watch out, there&#39;s an ant near your=
 foot.&quot;. The Thaayorre people thus have a very powerful sense of direc=
tion, being aware of which directions are where at almost all times. Kuuk T=
haayorre in essence <i>restricts </i>expression by denying you the ability =
to use egocentric directions, forcing you to use cardinal directions.<br>
<br>Notice that this is essentially the opposite view to that expressed by =
the LMW. The LMW claims that allowing more options, like, say, allowing bot=
h cardinal and egocentric directions would expand thought. But here we see =
the opposite: thought is affected by allowing <b>less </b>freedom of<b> </b=
>expression!<br>
<br>If you consider it, such restrictions permeate language. Consider, for =
example, the restriction (stretching the term a bit) that English divides c=
onsumption of food/drinks into &quot;eat&quot; and &quot;drink&quot; -- if =
you asked a regular English speaker, they would probably think of these two=
 activities as being distinct.<br>
<br>But what if you spoke a language where common usage dictates &quot;eat&=
quot; and &quot;drink&quot; are both expressed as one word, say, &quot;cons=
ume&quot;. &quot;Eat&quot; and &quot;drink&quot; would be specialized terms=
, and &quot;consume&quot; the generic term. A speaker of such a language wo=
uld likely think of eat and drink as being two realizations of a single act=
ivity.<br>
<br>There is of course a third option, where &quot;consume&quot;, &quot;eat=
&quot;, and &quot;drink&quot; are all equally common. I&#39;m not sure what=
 speakers of such a language would think about boundaries between eating an=
d 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 second=
ary or non-existent. My conclusion is=A0 (and here we get to the main point=
) that if Lojban wants to truly affect and expand thought, <b>it must restr=
ict expression</b>! And I argue that it has already done so!<br>
<br>Consider Lojban&#39;s lack of non-explicit metaphor (really a hiding aw=
ay of metaphor than a true lack, but that&#39;s a different topic) -- this =
is often claimed by Lojbanists to result in clearer expression and such, bu=
t this is because Lojban effectively restricts free expression of metaphors=
 in favor of being literalistic. Sure, there&#39;s {pe&#39;a}, but it&#39;s=
 rarely used in normal conversation -- in the same way &quot;consume&quot; =
is not commonly used in English in the same way &quot;eat&quot; and &quot;d=
rink&quot; are. {pe&#39;a} is secondary, leaving a Lojbanist effectively av=
oiding metaphors.<br>
<br>Metaphors are just one example out of the many restrictions Lojban plac=
es, both explicitly in grammar and implicitly by the speech-community. Lojb=
an thus already has the potential to explore alternative routes of thought,=
 but this is because it places restrictions on what you can say, not becaus=
e it&#39;s a permissive language, but because it&#39;s a restrictive langua=
ge. Hopefully I&#39;ve convinced you of this, but regardless of what you th=
ink, I would like to hear your responses and thoughts.<span class=3D"HOEnZb=
"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
</font></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">

<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" target=3D"_b=
lank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>mu&#39;o =
mi&#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.e&#39;ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi=
.luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father=
. :D )<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 />

--001a11c1641e50daf904faf23e43--