Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <8ac756fd-401a-4778-ae50-e54e232b64d0@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LN8.2.00.1409302305580.1352@jEEED>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com> <34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.LN8.2.00.1409302305580.1352@jEEED>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
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_4804_2049733439.1412143051745"
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_4804_2049733439.1412143051745
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:47:07 PM UTC-4, Alexander Kozhevnikov 
wrote:
>
> I just wanted to quickly butt in and voice disagreement with this example: 
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Dustin Lacewell wrote: 
> > I'm putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably for 
> > completeness in discourse) 
> > The example I habitually provide is, imagine some men are hanging out by 
> a 
> > water-cooler and some women walking past hear them making sexist 
> remarks. 
> > One women isn't going to confuse the other by saying something like 
> "Those 
> > dogs are disgusting". Does the listener really require such a 
> > front-and-center indication of non-veridicality? As far as I'm concerned 
> > the answer is blaring "no". 
>
> I think the answer is a clear 'yes' if you are going to effectively 
> communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture's 
> metaphors, whether that be primitive AI, hypothetical aliens, or just 
> people from a culture a few countries away where "dogs" is not a metaphor 
> for intellectually-primitive-human-males. 
>
> I think overall, having an efficient way to say what you really mean is a 
> good thing, and in this case, that means having an ability to specify in 
> a concise manner that something is or isn't metaphorical. 
>
> Having that means the more literal-minded, or those who struggle with 
> metaphorical speech, such as many autistic individuals for example, can be 
> readily cued in to what you are implying. It means children (and more 
> generally though less commonly mentally mature people as well) will be 
> less likely to pick up mis-conceptions when delving into a new topic - 
> because sure comparing people to animals is conceptually a fairly 
> widespread metaphor in its various permutations - but when you get into 
> less typical/casual matters it's no longer that easy. 
>
> The inability to distinguish between the literal and metaphorical quickly 
> will also manifest when you have a situation with both literal and 
> metaphorical instances of the thing involved. The above example becomes 
> insta-ambiguous if you also add in a couple of actual dogs doing something 
> disgusting, or appearing disgusting. Of course in your example that 
> doesn't strike me as a likely problem, but I think it's easy enough to run 
> into cases like that in practice. 
>
> I think we also overlook another value of the ability to be explicitly 
> metaphorical: it enables one to readily introduce new metaphors which 
> otherwise would require more load on the other parties in the conversation 
> to figure out. This is a generalization of my first point about speakers 
> who don't know the metaphor being deployed - except instead of limiting 
> our consideration to metaphors regularly used in one culture being 
> misunderstood by others, consider how much easier it is to throw a truly 
> novel metaphor into a conversation - trying this in English has often 
> generated uncomprehending looks when I've tried it, because I guess some 
> people just aren't good at recognizing metaphors they aren't familiar with 
> on the fly. I think we can have more creative and expressive uses of 
> language if we can readily differentiate the literal meaning from 
> non-literal. 
>
> Personally, one of the points which currently draw me to Lojban is it's 
> claimed ability to allow unambiguous communication efficiently. I 
> want a one-or-two syllable way to draw the distinction between me 
> being literal and not. (Though I don't have enough lojban knowledge yet to 
> particularly care whether le/lo have anything to do with making this 
> distinction.) 
>
> Or maybe I missed the whole point of this "veridicality" discussion, in 
> which case apologies for me wasting the time you all had to spend to read 
> this. 
>

I think there might be two different concepts of veridical being confused. 
You are talking about speaking non-metaphorically. And I agree there 
certainly should be a way to indicate a statement be taken "seriously" or 
"literally". However, I'm not sure that is the same as the veridical nature 
of {lo}, which is supposed to identify things as they "really are". If we 
were to take that literally then it would (almost) always be a sort of lie 
because it presupposes omniscience. It is ridiculous to think we know 
things as they "really are". So when we use "lo" we can --indeed we are 
still being metaphorical. Pink Unicorns are far from reality but we can 
still talk about them with "lo xunblabi pavyseljirna". So it's not really 
reality, but potentiality.

-- 
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_4804_2049733439.1412143051745
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:47:07 PM UTC-4, =
Alexander Kozhevnikov wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">I =
just wanted to quickly butt in and voice disagreement with this example:
<br>
<br>On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Dustin Lacewell wrote:
<br>&gt; I'm putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably for
<br>&gt; completeness in discourse)
<br>&gt; The example I habitually provide is, imagine some men are hanging =
out by a
<br>&gt; water-cooler and some women walking past hear them making sexist r=
emarks.
<br>&gt; One women isn't going to confuse the other by saying something lik=
e "Those
<br>&gt; dogs are disgusting". Does the listener really require such a
<br>&gt; front-and-center indication of non-veridicality? As far as I'm con=
cerned
<br>&gt; the answer is blaring "no".
<br>
<br>I think the answer is a clear 'yes' if you are going to effectively=20
<br>communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture's=20
<br>metaphors, whether that be primitive AI, hypothetical aliens, or just=
=20
<br>people from a culture a few countries away where "dogs" is not a metaph=
or=20
<br>for intellectually-primitive-<wbr>human-males.
<br>
<br>I think overall, having an efficient way to say what you really mean is=
 a=20
<br>good thing, and in this case, that means having an ability to specify i=
n=20
<br>a concise manner that something is or isn't metaphorical.
<br>
<br>Having that means the more literal-minded, or those who struggle with=
=20
<br>metaphorical speech, such as many autistic individuals for example, can=
 be=20
<br>readily cued in to what you are implying. It means children (and more=
=20
<br>generally though less commonly mentally mature people as well) will be=
=20
<br>less likely to pick up mis-conceptions when delving into a new topic -=
=20
<br>because sure comparing people to animals is conceptually a fairly=20
<br>widespread metaphor in its various permutations - but when you get into=
=20
<br>less typical/casual matters it's no longer that easy.
<br>
<br>The inability to distinguish between the literal and metaphorical quick=
ly=20
<br>will also manifest when you have a situation with both literal and=20
<br>metaphorical instances of the thing involved. The above example becomes=
=20
<br>insta-ambiguous if you also add in a couple of actual dogs doing someth=
ing=20
<br>disgusting, or appearing disgusting. Of course in your example that=20
<br>doesn't strike me as a likely problem, but I think it's easy enough to =
run=20
<br>into cases like that in practice.
<br>
<br>I think we also overlook another value of the ability to be explicitly=
=20
<br>metaphorical: it enables one to readily introduce new metaphors which=
=20
<br>otherwise would require more load on the other parties in the conversat=
ion=20
<br>to figure out. This is a generalization of my first point about speaker=
s=20
<br>who don't know the metaphor being deployed - except instead of limiting=
=20
<br>our consideration to metaphors regularly used in one culture being=20
<br>misunderstood by others, consider how much easier it is to throw a trul=
y=20
<br>novel metaphor into a conversation - trying this in English has often=
=20
<br>generated uncomprehending looks when I've tried it, because I guess som=
e=20
<br>people just aren't good at recognizing metaphors they aren't familiar w=
ith=20
<br>on the fly. I think we can have more creative and expressive uses of=20
<br>language if we can readily differentiate the literal meaning from=20
<br>non-literal.
<br>
<br>Personally, one of the points which currently draw me to Lojban is it's=
=20
<br>claimed ability to allow unambiguous communication efficiently. I=20
<br>want a one-or-two syllable way to draw the distinction between me=20
<br>being literal and not. (Though I don't have enough lojban knowledge yet=
 to=20
<br>particularly care whether le/lo have anything to do with making this=20
<br>distinction.)
<br>
<br>Or maybe I missed the whole point of this "veridicality" discussion, in=
=20
<br>which case apologies for me wasting the time you all had to spend to re=
ad=20
<br>this.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think there might be two different c=
oncepts of veridical being confused. You are talking about speaking non-met=
aphorically. And I agree there certainly should be a way to indicate a stat=
ement be taken "seriously" or "literally". However, I'm not sure that is th=
e same as the veridical nature of {lo}, which is supposed to identify thing=
s as they "really are". If we were to take that literally then it would (al=
most) always be a sort of lie because it presupposes omniscience. It is rid=
iculous to think we know things as they "really are". So when we use "lo" w=
e can --indeed we are still being metaphorical. Pink Unicorns are far from =
reality but we can still talk about them with "lo xunblabi pavyseljirna". S=
o it's not really reality, but potentiality.</div><div><br></div></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_4804_2049733439.1412143051745--