Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dlacewell@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8ac756fd-401a-4778-ae50-e54e232b64d0@googlegroups.com>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>
	<34b2a9f0-7ccb-4135-8795-7038cc996b42@googlegroups.com>
	<alpine.LN8.2.00.1409302305580.1352@jEEED>
	<8ac756fd-401a-4778-ae50-e54e232b64d0@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:00:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMDmBpG5rUAqQP6hMVx0rufQaceUcuH1=1iUbbobXtYGp=WpVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
From: Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@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=001a11c37a247aeded050456382c
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c37a247aeded050456382c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It helps if you mention who you are replying to, trans

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM, TR NS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/m3RoHDxxc7E/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 
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.

--001a11c37a247aeded050456382c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">It helps if you mention who you are replying to, trans</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 30,=
 2014 at 10:57 PM, TR NS <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:transfire@=
gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">transfire@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"h5"><br><=
br>On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:47:07 PM UTC-4, Alexander Kozhevnikov =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: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&#39;m putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably f=
or
<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&#39;t going to confuse the other by saying something=
 like &quot;Those
<br>&gt; dogs are disgusting&quot;. Does the listener really require such a
<br>&gt; front-and-center indication of non-veridicality? As far as I&#39;m=
 concerned
<br>&gt; the answer is blaring &quot;no&quot;.
<br>
<br>I think the answer is a clear &#39;yes&#39; if you are going to effecti=
vely=20
<br>communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture&#39;s=20
<br>metaphors, whether that be primitive AI, hypothetical aliens, or just=
=20
<br>people from a culture a few countries away where &quot;dogs&quot; is no=
t a metaphor=20
<br>for intellectually-primitive-<u></u>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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t strike me as a likely problem, but I think it&#39;s easy en=
ough 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&#39;t know the metaphor being deployed - except instead of limi=
ting=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&#39;ve tried it, because I guess=
 some=20
<br>people just aren&#39;t good at recognizing metaphors they aren&#39;t fa=
miliar with=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&#=
39;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&#39;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 &quot;veridicality&quot; disc=
ussion, 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></div><div>I think there might be two=
 different concepts of veridical being confused. You are talking about spea=
king non-metaphorically. And I agree there certainly should be a way to ind=
icate a statement be taken &quot;seriously&quot; or &quot;literally&quot;. =
However, I&#39;m not sure that is the same as the veridical nature of {lo},=
 which is supposed to identify things as they &quot;really are&quot;. 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 thin=
gs as they &quot;really are&quot;. So when we use &quot;lo&quot; we can --i=
ndeed we are still being metaphorical. Pink Unicorns are far from reality b=
ut we can still talk about them with &quot;lo xunblabi pavyseljirna&quot;. =
So it&#39;s not really reality, but potentiality.</div><div><br></div></div=
><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
d/topic/lojban/m3RoHDxxc7E/unsubscribe" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.go=
ogle.com/d/topic/lojban/m3RoHDxxc7E/unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+un=
subscribe@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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><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 />

--001a11c37a247aeded050456382c--