Received: from mail-qa0-f60.google.com ([209.85.216.60]:56168) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WrtTx-0001Rg-Sc for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:56 -0700 Received: by mail-qa0-f60.google.com with SMTP id m5sf1072553qaj.25 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=references:message-id:date:from:reply-to:subject:to:in-reply-to :mime-version:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=//bDRsRzbuKwFwfJPZ7uf+mRtlVlifPpboVLREkIVYQ=; b=R0f6inqH+npIbYyKUiTQ3bnMv4fy+RfzPgFyrd010h03OXPUGZEiXBnyO4Zc0RKAtH sJ/fM95BACayxv6xnxb3lDM55796biTEY1YZ0ssU4OG+HvZ2Ol/RwyDSu6T5c3zFHk8i bsFdEvaJ+LJ6yOdsOcbYFM5k25vyvSY4Kp5SCBqz1FL7ybtQydIIB3kvABwYoXcL4w0C uCa+ifxlbDs19SG7ONcHGI8hk4t7FyBWazVBikLD7pMvjYQbnYuiN9stRid8emOodUh3 eLTDIsKL/gH2urHSQrJ9wJllf3DcJ5KhkZO6I3xWKZfl7q7iVi/na8e3snOECgJKmF0I qBFw== X-Received: by 10.140.47.201 with SMTP id m67mr50023qga.29.1401820239587; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.50.143 with SMTP id s15ls2596086qga.33.gmail; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.35.5 with SMTP id t5mr9682730yha.9.1401820239228; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm19-vm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm19-vm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com. [216.39.63.167]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id zs4si9805pbc.1.2014.06.03.11.30.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.39.63.167 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.63.167; Received: from [216.39.60.171] by nm19.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2014 18:30:38 -0000 Received: from [216.39.60.161] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2014 18:30:38 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1027.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2014 18:30:38 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 755672.54020.bm@omp1027.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 85836 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Jun 2014 18:30:37 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: Nig95nIVM1keUgZjRReOR0NdDAtS.fjU6neVsGv5rU3VB58 I8Xf6UIuuqDAQdJo_Jud34FLXDh9eKkgRCu.NvzdSO8PNwKSug4NUVqxtRTi NZSCwN2dq96zPW22FQMxT4AJelJist8SqlpHq6s4CuUYde6DBHH3NU3PvZSt aq6K.L3bTu.Pg9N.zMUKY3l0Pbkim8sqH5Hq8duoyo0Bg0_kDLoncZmGHQ.. KZg.uTFmay1xLYdMeznzErC.fJ68lvDTtU2LEcKU24bmBFO7QX2G9AnL_200 GMoG_uuO7hvMhXs9OZxwXXYXgBPUqmeb5jMjO5VgSGJKuQx6HriBUufZP8gY NirJ1j4OY.87Xi9PvZ0P6ZxK96aweLJeemzPk2qOWs1Vm1Zmg7vxUOBzCoha Yqu34jYMr9v71EPIH63gSwIZh0ASw2sfMq1TS8tUNoG1eYM6JmVXwLpiwFC9 kFf4XHnFRJukgc0MgYJvCfaLsJZuI2xqVzTWEBpb0_6VexbcOOMxvP8cQKCg Xb7FjzU3PBu5rNcuEX1z4Si7I13kZoTNrCu8wjcjp4ypo3UVjCwk- Received: from [99.92.109.82] by web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:37 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,CgpjbnRyYXRpb25hbAoKPDxUaGUgY2VudHJhbCBxdWVzdGlvbiB0byBjb25zaWRlciBpcyAid2hhdCBtZWNoYW5pc20gZG8gbGFuZ3VhZ2VzIGFmZmVjdCB0aG91Z2h0IGJ5PyIuIE15IHZpZXcgaXMgdGhhdCBsYW5ndWFnZXMgZWZmZWN0IHRoaXMgYnnCoHJlc3RyaWN0aW5nIGV4cHJlc3Npb24uPj4KwqBUaGlzIGJlZ3MgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIChpbiB0aGUgY29ycmVjdCBzZW5zZSBhcyB3ZWxsKSAiRG9lcyBsYW5ndWFnZSBhZmZlY3QgdGhvdWdodD8iIMKgVGhpcyBpcyBtb3JlIG9yIGxlc3MgdGhlIG9yaWcBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.188.663 References: <3c8e6b44-5612-4d6e-afbc-5a802be088d6@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <1401820237.23065.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:30:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban, restrictions, and thought To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" In-Reply-To: <3c8e6b44-5612-4d6e-afbc-5a802be088d6@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.39.63.167 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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: , X-Original-From: John E Clifford Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="431184223-929150969-1401820237=:23065" X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- --431184223-929150969-1401820237=:23065 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable cntrational <> =A0This begs the question (in the correct sense as well) "Does language aff= ect thought?" =A0This is more or less the original SWH and is yet to be est= ablished. =A0Hence, this is not a reasonable question to ask. =A0The answer= give is contrarian enough, but very Orwellian (the MediaWiki point is equa= lly unfounded, but slightly more plausible). <<=A0To take an extreme example, consider the famous Kuuk Thaayorre languag= e -- 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 n= ear your foot.". The Thaayorre people thus have a very powerful sense of di= rection, being aware of which directions are where at almost all times. Kuu= k Thaayorre in essence=A0restricts=A0expression by denying you the ability = to use egocentric directions, forcing you to use cardinal directions.>> But this is a cultural, not a linguistic, fact. =A0From comparative data we= know that KT had eqocentric directions but speakers stopped using them (th= ough apparently they can pull them up in totally disorienting situations). = =A0This is just the language following the cullture or, at worst coevolving= with it in a certain direction. =A0Nothing here about language affecting t= hought (except in the simplistic sense that on certain kinds of test people= do marginally better at tasks that are set up in the language). <> So? =A0If less freedom affects thought, what does this say about more freed= om. =A0Certainly not that it doesn't affect thought; not even that it affec= ts thought in an opposite way. =A0It may be that they both have the same so= rt of effect (including none at all). =A0This does not help the case here a= t all.=A0 <> =A0What do these supposed effects mean? =A0Does someone who uses only "cons= ume" ever pour his steak from a glass? =A0chew on his orange juice? Does so= meone who has two terms fail to swallow when drinking (or when eating)? =A0= Ishe conscious of doing something different when he stops ladling his soup = and picks it up and slurps? =A0What does it mean to say that a person think= s of two activities as the same or different (other than the words he uses)= ? =A0And what does this all have to do with restrictions or their lack? =A0= Thick baloney and thin baloney are both baloney. <> =A0Well, we haven't seen this yet (nor any sign that it is so or what it ev= en means). =A0So both the exhortation and the display are not likely to be = very convincing, <> =A0This is an interesting presumed fact about Lojban culture, but has next = to nothing to do with Lojban as a language. =A0There is nothing in the lang= uage to prevent metaphors (as {pe'a} clearly shows, even if all the metapho= rs did not). =A0There is a cultural pattern (which came very late in the pr= ogram: JCB loved metaphors, delighted in creating them and praised those ot= hers who used them, while dismissing literalists) to insist that tanru (JCB= even called them metaphors -- another piece of Logjamic neologism) must be= literally interpretable. =A0I suspect this comes from the later generation= s of Lojbanists, who tend to be computerists rather than humanists or lingu= ists (read punsters and metaphorists) and carry over habits from the childr= en of C (not even from math, where metaphors are bread and butter). =A0But,= for all this, there is nothing in Lojban against metaphors. =A0It's just t= hat a metaphor offered is likely to get a number of hostile comments, "it doesn't say what it means" -- but not "that is ungrammatical/not Lojban". = =A0But, all that aside, just what is the absence (or presence, for that mat= ter) of metaphors supposed to say about freedom of thought (are there, say,= things that can be said using metaphors that can't be said in plain text? = Proving that would be interesting -- and probably self-defeating, for obvio= us reasons). <> =A0No examples yet of grammar restrictions. =A0In fact, no examplles of lan= guage restrictions at all (in Lojban or otherwise). It is nice to see some attempt at philosophical discussions here. =A0But. a= las, this only comes up to the level of too many philosophical discussions. SWH is the most muddled topic in Linguistics and so a hard one to work with= . =A0This does not get into it at all, let alone shed any light (or useful = darkness). --=20 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 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --431184223-929150969-1401820237=:23065 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<= div class=3D"" id=3D"yiv5105310752yui_3_16_0_1_1401817190600_12309" style= =3D"">
cntrational
<<The central question to consider is "what mechanism do languages affect = thought by?". My view is that languages effect this by restri= cting expression.>>
=
 This begs the question (in the correct sense as well) "Does languag= e affect thought?"  This is more or less the original SWH and is yet to be established.  Hence, this i= s not a reasonable question to ask.  The answer give is contrarian eno= ugh, but very Orwellian (the MediaWiki point is equally unfounded, but slig= htly more plausible).

<< To take an extreme example, consider the famous Kuuk Thaayorre language -- this langu= age 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 no= rth of your foot." for "Watch out, there's an ant near your foot.". The Tha= ayorre people thus have a very powerful sense of direction, being aware of = which directions are where at almost all times. Kuuk Thaayorre in essence&n= bsp;restricts&n= bsp;expression by denying you the abil= ity to use egocentric directions, forcing you to use cardinal directions.>>
But this is a c= ultural, not a linguistic, fact.  From comparative data we know that K= T had eqocentric directions but speakers stopped using them (though apparen= tly they can pull them up in totally disorienting situations).  This i= s just the language following the cullture or, at worst coevolving with it = in a certain direction.  Nothing here about language affecting thought= (except in the simplistic sense that on certain kinds of test people do ma= rginally better at tasks that are set up in the language).

<= span class=3D"" id=3D"yiv5105310752yui_3_16_0_8_1401817190600_19" style=3D"= background-color:transparent;"><<Notice that this is essentially the opposite view to that expressed by= the LMW. The LMW claims that allowing more options, like, say, allowing bo= th cardinal and egocentric directions would expand thought. But here we see the opposite: thought is affected by allowing less freedom of express= ion!>>
So?  If less freedom affects thought, what does this say abo= ut more freedom.  Certainly not that it doesn't affect thought; not ev= en that it affects thought in an opposite way.  It may be that they bo= th have the same sort of effect (including none at all).  This does no= t help the case here at all. 

<<If you consider it, such restrictions permeate language. C= onsider, for example, the restriction (stretching the term a bit) that Engl= ish divides consumption of food/drinks into "eat" and "drink" -- if you ask= ed a regular English speaker, they would probably think of these two activi= ties as being distinct.

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

There is= of course a third option, where "consume", "eat", and "drink" are all equa= lly common. I'm not sure what speakers of such a language would think about boundaries between eating and drinking are.>>
 What do these supposed eff= ects mean?  Does someone who uses only "consume" ever pour his steak f= rom a glass?  chew on his orange juice? Does someone who has two terms= fail to swallow when drinking (or when eating)?  Ishe conscious of do= ing something different when he stops ladling his soup and picks it up and = slurps?  What does it mean to say that a person thinks of two activiti= es as the same or different (other than the words he uses)?  And what = does this all have to do with restrictions or their lack?  Thick balon= ey and thin baloney are both baloney.

<<Once again, we see that biases and alterations of = thought are caused by restricting people to a certain option, leaving the o= ther 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!>>
 Well, we haven't seen this yet (nor any sign that it = is so or what it even means).  So both the exhortation and the display= are not likely to be very convincing,

&= lt;<Consider Lojban's lack of non-expl= icit 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 su= ch, but this is because Lojban effectively restricts free expression of metaphors in favor of being literalistic. Sur= e, there's {pe'a}, but it's rarely used in normal conversation -- in the sa= me 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.
>>
 This is an interest= ing presumed fact about Lojban culture, but has next to nothing to do with = Lojban as a language.  There is nothing in the language to prevent met= aphors (as {pe'a} clearly shows, even if all the metaphors did not).  = There is a cultural pattern (which came very late in the program: JCB loved metaphors, delighted in creating them and praised those others who used th= em, while dismissing literalists) to insist that tanru (JCB even called the= m metaphors -- another piece of Logjamic neologism) must be literally inter= pretable.  I suspect this comes from the later generations of Lojbanis= ts, who tend to be computerists rather than humanists or linguists (read pu= nsters and metaphorists) and carry over habits from the children of C (not = even from math, where metaphors are bread and butter).  But, for all t= his, there is nothing in Lojban against metaphors.  It's just that a m= etaphor offered is likely to get a number of hostile comments, "it doesn't = say what it means" -- but not "that is ungrammatical/not Lojban".  But= , all that aside, just what is the absence (or presence, for that matter) o= f metaphors supposed to say about freedom of thought (are there, say, thing= s that can be said using metaphors that can't be said in plain text? Proving that would be interesting -- and probably self-defeating, for obvi= ous reasons).

=
<<Metaphors are just one example out of the many restrictions= Lojban places, both explicitly in grammar and implicitly by the speech-com= munity. 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 becaus= e it's a permissive language, but because it's a restrictive language. Hope= fully I've convinced you of this, but regardless of what you think, I would= like to hear your responses and thoughts.>>

It is nice to see some attempt at philosophical discuss= ions here.  But. alas, this only comes up to the level of too many phi= losophical discussions.

SWH is the mos= t muddled topic in Linguistics and so a hard one to work with.  This d= oes not get into it at all, let alone shed any light (or useful darkness).<= /div>

--
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+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--431184223-929150969-1401820237=:23065--