Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.152 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.152;
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:36:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1434464239.890000.1422398168059.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <63c70fb2-f85a-49bf-8bac-848e04682b3a@googlegroups.com>
References: <63c70fb2-f85a-49bf-8bac-848e04682b3a@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_889999_832515269.1422398168050"
Content-Length: 29529
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 
 Content preview:  Back in the day, the Sapir-WhorfHypothesis (SWH)was a hot
   metaphysico-psycho-sociological issue. Itheld that the language we speak affects
    the way we perceive theworld. There were numerous versions ranging from that
    our languagelimits what we can think and determines how we do think about
    theworld to much weaker claims our language favor certain views andinclines
    us toward them. In the great scheme of things, languagesgot divided into
   a number of groups based on what were taken to besignificant features. In
   particular, the large division was betweenlanguages which built up sentences
    by sticking words for things(“nouns” to take a convenient term) into
   slots provided by wordsfor actions and relations (“verbs”) and languages
    in whichsentences were typically one word which encompassed the wholesituation
    (a sort of verb, again). These corresponded to world-viewsin which independent
    and enduring separate items acted and interactedautonomously and those in
    which the whole was a process, a flow ofinterconnected and evanescent areas,
    eddies in the stream, as itwere. There were several other patterns but these
    two were prominentsince they were displayed, on the one hand, by the anthropologistswho
    were conducting this research and, on the other, by a number ofNative American
    tribes that were the scientists chief subjects. Through the middle years
   of the lastcentury a number of groups worked to decide just what the limits
    ofthis hypothesis ought to be and how to test it. One approach wasLoglan,
    a language with a controlled built-in metaphysical slant,which was to be
   taught to people with another slant to see if theychanged in ways the Loglan
    slant suggested. However, starting in thelate 1950s, another factor arose:
    changes in both psychology andlinguistics. On the one hand, new methods of
    psychological testingwhich did not involve the use of language in the old
    way were appliedto people who did not speak the language of the investigators,
    Onthe other hand, linguistic theory sprang beyond the peculiarities ofthe
    [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: 101languages.net]
  2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
                             [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN]
                             [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2      RBL: Average reputation (+2)
                             [209.85.220.59 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid

------=_Part_889999_832515269.1422398168050
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Back in the day, the Sapir-WhorfHypothesis (SWH)was a hot metaphysico-psych=
o-sociological issue. Itheld that the language we speak affects the way we =
perceive theworld. There were numerous versions ranging from that our langu=
agelimits what we can think and determines how we do think about theworld t=
o much weaker claims our language favor certain views andinclines us toward=
 them. In the great scheme of things, languagesgot divided into a number of=
 groups based on what were taken to besignificant features. In particular, =
the large division was betweenlanguages which built up sentences by stickin=
g words for things(=E2=80=9Cnouns=E2=80=9D to take a convenient term) into =
slots provided by wordsfor actions and relations (=E2=80=9Cverbs=E2=80=9D) =
and languages in whichsentences were typically one word which encompassed t=
he wholesituation (a sort of verb, again). These corresponded to world-view=
sin which independent and enduring separate items acted and interactedauton=
omously and those in which the whole was a process, a flow ofinterconnected=
 and evanescent areas, eddies in the stream, as itwere. There were several =
other patterns but these two were prominentsince they were displayed, on th=
e one hand, by the anthropologistswho were conducting this research and, on=
 the other, by a number ofNative American tribes that were the scientists c=
hief subjects.=20
Through the middle years of the lastcentury a number of groups worked to de=
cide just what the limits ofthis hypothesis ought to be and how to test it.=
 One approach wasLoglan, a language with a controlled built-in metaphysical=
 slant,which was to be taught to people with another slant to see if theych=
anged in ways the Loglan slant suggested. However, starting in thelate 1950=
s, another factor arose: changes in both psychology andlinguistics. On the =
one hand, new methods of psychological testingwhich did not involve the use=
 of language in the old way were appliedto people who did not speak the lan=
guage of the investigators, Onthe other hand, linguistic theory sprang beyo=
nd the peculiarities ofthe surface grammars of languages to look for underl=
yingregularities. The result of these two was to call the basis oof SWHinto=
 question. In psychology, it turned out tha people who spokeradically diffe=
rent languages did not handle reality in differentways, once language was t=
aken out of the examination. Inlingusitics, it turned out that radically di=
fferent languagestructures could be derived from a common core using differ=
entselections of the same rules, built on the same principles. Eventually, =
it even became conceivable (even plausible for some) thatthere was a single=
 sort of representation from which the sentences inevery language are deriv=
ed. In short, the search for the causalmechanism for differences in perceiv=
ing the world in the differencesin the grammatical structure of the various=
 languages was called offbecause there were in reality, at a deep scientifi=
c level, neitherdifferences in perception nor differences in grammatical st=
ructure. The appearance of these correlations was a mere tautology: we took=
people as perceiving the world differently because they talked aboutit diff=
erently. But the differences were superficial.=20
Of course, no reasonably viablescientific project dies easily. So people wh=
o have invested in SWHcontinue to experiment and to find ways around the de=
velopments ofthe last 50 years and more. In particular, though differences =
invocabulary played a very small part in early discussions (amongscientists=
 =E2=80=93 popularizers regularly stressed these: the number ofEskimo words=
 for snow, as the classic example, since these are easyto discuss without g=
etting into theory), modern discussions havestressed them. And come up with=
 real results, namely that, if adistinction is significant in one language =
and ot in another,speakers of the first language will be better at making t=
hatdistinction than people of the second. Famously (the best resultsregular=
ly reported) , speakers of Russian, a language with two wordsfor blue, ligh=
t and dark (roughly) are a just measurable fraction ofa second faster at de=
tecting differences in shades of blue thanspeakers of English, say. On the =
other side, monolingual Navajos,whose language does not distinguish blue an=
d green (they both arecalled turquoise) are not detectably slower than Angl=
os at sortingblue and green objects into piles of similar color.
If even the more grandiosepossibilities of the hypothesis are at such a low=
 level (eithernegative or trivial), what can be said for Loglan/Lojban? Fir=
st, astest of the initial hypothesis in its full form, Loglan was a bust. I=
t was to be taught to speakers of noun-and-verb languages, ofthings that go=
 into slots, but it is itself just such a language(hidden behind some truly=
 goofy and muddled terminology), so it isnot moving toward a new metaphysic=
s at all. And, in fairness, itgave up that =E2=80=9Cnew metaphysics=E2=80=
=9D line early on in favor of=E2=80=9Ccultural neutrality=E2=80=9D, which i=
t aimed to achieve mainly byvocabulary; it would have everything that any l=
anguage had (tensesAND aspects AND modes =E2=80=A6.), all more or less equa=
lly available. Ofcourse, only the ones familiar to users from their native =
languagesget used, but they are all there. The other shift was a growingemp=
hasis =E2=80=93 courtesy mainly of the languages' popularity withcomputer s=
cientists =E2=80=93 on freedom form structural ambiguity. Everyutterance of=
 Lojban (in particular, though the goal goes back toLoglan) can be shown gr=
ammatical in only one way, it has a uniqueparse. (And presumably a correct =
one, that is one that correspondsperfectly to that underlying proposition f=
rom which the sentence isderived by the selection of rules peculiar to this=
 language. Whatever the fate of the monoparsing claim is at the moment, thi=
ssecond point =E2=80=93 which is the interesting one for refuting theHypoth=
esis =E2=80=93 is not demonstrated.) As Lojban is set up, protectingtis cla=
im involves a considerable stock of minutiae and it is notclear that people=
 can actually learn to negotiate this field in realtime, but to even come c=
lose is an impressive advance in language. (The claim that the underlying p=
roposition is itself alwaysunambiguous is also suspect.) Learning Lojban is=
 not a totalwaste, then, even relative to learning just any other language,=
 whichis always a valuable thing to do.
=20

     On Monday, January 26, 2015 2:21 AM, ravas <ravas@outlook.com> wrote:
  =20

=20
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-8, afke...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everyone!
=C2=A0a'oi


our main question is whether you would agree with this theory or not.

=C2=A0I agree with it.
=C2=A0

=C2=A0Does being able to speak in a different, logical language also mean t=
hat you are able to think in a different, logical manner?=20

And seeing that Lojban (most probably) is not your first language, do you b=
elieve that people are able to learn to change the way they percieve realit=
y, just like they are able to learn a new language?=20


What is reality? Do we ever truly perceive it?
I could say the brain records electromagnetic patterns=20
which we then interpret as reality.
Some people believe we generate and project reality.

What is aware of the attention being placed on thought?
=C2=A0
I started learning Lojban last month=20
and I can say that it has changed my thinking by=20
making me aware of aspects of language.
We could say that this would happen while learning any second language.
I think the real proof will only be available when you are truly thinking i=
n the second language,=20
as opposed to translating in your mind.=20

Before I realized the concept of linguistic relativity existed,=20
I realized a major aspect of English (among other languages)
is putting things into two categories: "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong=
".
I assume it started with the origin of language.=20
Some of the first words undoubtedly had the meaning: "edible" and "not edib=
le", "dangerous" and "not dangerous".
But it's not strictly practical or fact based anymore... there are opinions=
 and morals.
So what happens when you simply swap the categories?=20
Right is now wrong (morally).
Good is now bad.
Surely your life would change over night if you could accomplish this (and =
wanted to >_<).


So for example, does someone who can speak a Native American language as we=
ll as regular English have the possibility to view reality in two different=
 ways?=20

=C2=A0I don't think so. Perspective gained is perspective gained.=20
Maybe if you could somehow completely segregate the two languages in your m=
ind...


Is this the reason you are so interested in Lojban, because it enables you =
to think and perceive the world more logically? And if not, where did your =
interest for the Lojban language come from?

I started and almost finished my own English spelling reform.
(soon, door, foot... arg)
Spelling reform is nothing new though; and I decided that no reform will ev=
er be globally accepted
because people value Etymology, and there is just too much that would need =
to be "translated"
before we could stop teaching the old versions of words.
The solution is simply to learn and promote a language with a phonemic orth=
ography.

I gave Esperanto a try and after a week or two I found=20
http://www.101languages.net/esperanto/criticism.html
(notice the quote at the top ;D)
which made me aware of Ido and led me to the article=20
http://idolinguo.org.uk/whyido.htm
Every weakness of Esperanto I had noticed was in that article,
and addressed in the Ido reform.
However, the first article also made me aware of Lojban.
I decided to learn Lojban because of the promotion of linguistic relativity=
,
the fact that it is not Latin based, and my interest in programming.

Side note:
Since you already know English, I want to recommend the book=20
"Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life".
It helped me see detrimental aspects of English like: "I have to..."
Now I always think "I choose to... because..."
It also suggests some beautiful concepts such as considering:
what do you want the person's reason to be for doing something for you.

stela selckiku:=20

Perhaps the most perfectly Lojbanic of Lojban sentences is the sentence " "=
, the empty sentence, which of course asserts nothing at all about anything=
, and does so in perfect elegance. All of Lojban springs from this emptines=
s.


Have you ever read anything by Walter Russel?
From his book "A new concept of the Universe" (rather fitting for this conv=
ersation):
If the power to cause motion is in the balanced state of rest, it necessari=
ly follows that energy is in the stillness of rest and not in
motion which is effect of cause.=20
--=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.


  =20

--=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.

------=_Part_889999_832515269.1422398168050
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:He=
lveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:16px"><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" s=
tyle=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"">Back in the day, the Sap=
ir-Whorf
Hypothesis (SWH)was a hot metaphysico-psycho-sociological issue.  It
held that the language we speak affects the way we perceive the
world.  There were numerous versions ranging from that our language
limits what we can think and determines how we do think about the
world to much weaker claims our language favor certain views and
inclines us toward them.  In the great scheme of things, languages
got divided into a number of groups based on what were taken to be
significant features.  In particular, the large division was between
languages which built up sentences by sticking words for things
(=E2=80=9Cnouns=E2=80=9D to take a convenient term) into slots provided by =
words
for actions and relations (=E2=80=9Cverbs=E2=80=9D) and languages in which
sentences were typically one word which encompassed the whole
situation (a sort of verb, again).  These corresponded to world-views
in which independent and enduring separate items acted and interacted
autonomously and those in which the whole was a process, a flow of
interconnected and evanescent areas, eddies in the stream, as it
were.  There were several other patterns but these two were prominent
since they were displayed, on the one hand, by the anthropologists
who were conducting this research and, on the other, by a number of
Native American tribes that were the scientists chief subjects. =20
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"">Through the middle years=
 of the last
century a number of groups worked to decide just what the limits of
this hypothesis ought to be and how to test it.  One approach was
Loglan, a language with a controlled built-in metaphysical slant,
which was to be taught to people with another slant to see if they
changed in ways the Loglan slant suggested.  However, starting in the
late 1950s, another factor arose: changes in both psychology and
linguistics.  On the one hand, new methods of psychological testing
which did not involve the use of language in the old way were applied
to people who did not speak the language of the investigators,  On
the other hand, linguistic theory sprang beyond the peculiarities of
the surface grammars of languages to look for underlying
regularities.  The result of these two was to call the basis oof SWH
into question.  In psychology, it turned out tha people who spoke
radically different languages did not handle reality in different
ways, once language was taken out of the examination.  In
lingusitics, it turned out that radically different language
structures could be derived from a common core using different
selections of the same rules, built on the same principles.=20
Eventually, it even became conceivable (even plausible for some) that
there was a single sort of representation from which the sentences in
every language are derived.  In short, the search for the causal
mechanism for differences in perceiving the world in the differences
in the grammatical structure of the various languages was called off
because there were in reality, at a deep scientific level, neither
differences in perception nor differences in grammatical structure.=20
The appearance of these correlations was a mere tautology: we took
people as perceiving the world differently because they talked about
it differently. But the differences were superficial. =20
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"=
">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"">Of course, no reasonably=
 viable
scientific project dies easily.  So people who have invested in SWH
continue to experiment and to find ways around the developments of
the last 50 years and more.  In particular, though differences in
vocabulary played a very small part in early discussions (among
scientists =E2=80=93 popularizers regularly stressed these: the number of
Eskimo words for snow, as the classic example, since these are easy
to discuss without getting into theory), modern discussions have
stressed them.  And come up with real results, namely that, if a
distinction is significant in one language and ot in another,
speakers of the first language will be better at making that
distinction than people of the second.  Famously (the best results
regularly reported) , speakers of Russian, a language with two words
for blue, light and dark (roughly) are a just measurable fraction of
a second faster at detecting differences in shades of blue than
speakers of English, say.  On the other side, monolingual Navajos,
whose language does not distinguish blue and green (they both are
called turquoise) are not detectably slower than Anglos at sorting
blue and green objects into piles of similar color.</div><div style=3D"marg=
in-bottom: 0in" class=3D""><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_14223=
98078828_5954">If even the more grandiose
possibilities of the hypothesis are at such a low level (either
negative or trivial), what can be said for Loglan/Lojban?  First, as
test of the initial hypothesis in its full form, Loglan was a bust.=20
It was to be taught to speakers of  noun-and-verb languages, of
things that go into slots, but it is itself just such a language
(hidden behind some truly goofy and muddled terminology), so it is
not moving toward a new metaphysics at all.  And, in fairness, it
gave up that =E2=80=9Cnew metaphysics=E2=80=9D line early on in favor of
=E2=80=9Ccultural neutrality=E2=80=9D, which it aimed to achieve mainly by
vocabulary; it would have everything that any language had (tenses
AND aspects AND modes =E2=80=A6.), all more or less equally available.  Of
course, only the ones familiar to users from their native languages
get used, but they are all there.  The other shift was a growing
emphasis =E2=80=93 courtesy mainly of the languages' popularity with
computer scientists =E2=80=93 on freedom form structural ambiguity.  Every
utterance of Lojban (in particular, though the goal goes back to
Loglan) can be shown grammatical in only one way, it has a unique
parse.  (And presumably a correct one, that is one that corresponds
perfectly to that underlying proposition from which the sentence is
derived by the selection of rules peculiar to this language.=20
Whatever the fate of the monoparsing claim is at the moment, this
second point  =E2=80=93 which is the interesting one for refuting the
Hypothesis =E2=80=93 is not demonstrated.)  As Lojban is set up, protecting
tis claim involves a considerable stock of minutiae and it is not
clear that people can actually learn to negotiate this field in real
time, but to even come close is an impressive advance in language.=20
(The claim that the underlying proposition is itself always
unambiguous  is also suspect.)   Learning Lojban is not a total
waste, then, even relative to learning just any other language, which
is always a valuable thing to do.</div><div id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_142239807882=
8_5922">


</div><div style=3D"margin-bottom: 0in" class=3D"" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_14223=
98078828_5955"><br class=3D"" style=3D"">
</div> <div class=3D"qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class=3D"yahoo_quote=
d" style=3D"display: block;"> <div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, Hel=
vetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"=
> <div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Aria=
l, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <font si=
ze=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"> On Monday, January 26, 2015 2:21 AM, ravas &lt;rav=
as@outlook.com&gt; wrote:<br> </font> </div>  <br><br> <div class=3D"y_msg_=
container"><div id=3D"yiv1744805549"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"non=
e">On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-8, afke...@gmail.com wrot=
e:<blockquote class=3D"yiv1744805549gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-l=
eft:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv style=3D"line-height:21.2999992370605px;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:=
Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:15px;">Hello Everyone!</div></div></blockquot=
e><div>&nbsp;</div><div>a'oi<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none"><blockquo=
te class=3D"yiv1744805549gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex;">our main question =
is whether you would agree with this theory or not.<br clear=3D"none"></blo=
ckquote><div>&nbsp;</div><div>I agree with it.<br clear=3D"none"></div>&nbs=
p;<br clear=3D"none"></div><blockquote class=3D"yiv1744805549gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"line-height:21.2999992370605px;color:r=
gb(68,68,68);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:15px;">&nbsp;Does be=
ing able to speak in a different, logical language also mean that you are a=
ble to think in a different, logical manner? </div></div></blockquote><bloc=
kquote class=3D"yiv1744805549gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div styl=
e=3D"line-height:21.2999992370605px;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:Calibri=
, sans-serif;font-size:15px;">And seeing that Lojban (most probably) is not=
 your first language, do you believe that people are able to learn to chang=
e the way they percieve reality, just like they are able to learn a new lan=
guage? <br clear=3D"none"></div></div></blockquote><div><br clear=3D"none">=
What is reality? Do we ever truly perceive it?<br clear=3D"none">I could sa=
y the brain records electromagnetic patterns <br clear=3D"none">which we th=
en interpret as reality.<br clear=3D"none">Some people believe we generate =
and project reality.<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">What is aware of =
the attention being placed on thought?<br clear=3D"none">&nbsp;<br clear=3D=
"none">I started learning Lojban last month <br clear=3D"none">and I can sa=
y that it has changed my thinking by <br clear=3D"none">making me aware of =
aspects of language.<br clear=3D"none">We could say that this would happen =
while learning any second language.<br clear=3D"none">I think the real proo=
f will only be available when you are truly thinking in the second language=
, <br clear=3D"none">as opposed to translating in your mind. <br clear=3D"n=
one"><br clear=3D"none">Before I realized the concept of linguistic relativ=
ity existed, <br clear=3D"none">I realized a major aspect of English (among=
 other languages)<br clear=3D"none">is putting things into two categories: =
"good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong".<br clear=3D"none">I assume it starte=
d with the origin of language. <br clear=3D"none">Some of the first words u=
ndoubtedly had the meaning: "edible" and "not edible", "dangerous" and "not=
 dangerous".<br clear=3D"none">But it's not strictly practical or fact base=
d anymore... there are opinions and morals.<br clear=3D"none">So what happe=
ns when you simply swap the categories? <br clear=3D"none">Right is now wro=
ng (morally).<br clear=3D"none">Good is now bad.<br clear=3D"none">Surely y=
our life would change over night if you could accomplish this (and wanted t=
o &gt;_&lt;).<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none"><blockquote class=3D"yiv=
1744805549gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex;">So for example, does someone who =
can speak a Native American language as
 well as regular English have the possibility to view reality in two=20
different ways? <br clear=3D"none"></blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div>I don't th=
ink so. Perspective gained is perspective gained. <br clear=3D"none">Maybe =
if you could somehow completely segregate the two languages in your mind...=
<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none"></div><blockquote class=3D"yiv1744805=
549gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"line-height:21.299999=
2370605px;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:15p=
x;">Is this the reason you are so interested in Lojban, because it enables =
you to think and perceive the world more logically? And if not, where did y=
our interest for the Lojban language come from?</div></div></blockquote><di=
v><br clear=3D"none">I started and almost finished my own English spelling =
reform.<br clear=3D"none">(soon, door, foot... arg)<br clear=3D"none">Spell=
ing reform is nothing new though; and I decided that no reform will ever be=
 globally accepted<br clear=3D"none">because people value Etymology, and th=
ere is just too much that would need to be "translated"<br clear=3D"none">b=
efore we could stop teaching the old versions of words.<br clear=3D"none">T=
he solution is simply to learn and promote a language with a phonemic ortho=
graphy.<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">I gave Esperanto a try and aft=
er a week or two I found <br clear=3D"none">http://www.101languages.net/esp=
eranto/criticism.html<br clear=3D"none">(notice the quote at the top ;D)<br=
 clear=3D"none">which made me aware of Ido and led me to the article <br cl=
ear=3D"none">http://idolinguo.org.uk/whyido.htm<br clear=3D"none">Every wea=
kness of Esperanto I had noticed was in that article,<br clear=3D"none">and=
 addressed in the Ido reform.<br clear=3D"none">However, the first article =
also made me aware of Lojban.<br clear=3D"none">I decided to learn Lojban b=
ecause of the promotion of linguistic relativity,<br clear=3D"none">the fac=
t that it is not Latin based, and my interest in programming.<br clear=3D"n=
one"><br clear=3D"none">Side note:<br clear=3D"none">Since you already know=
 English, I want to recommend the book <br clear=3D"none">"Nonviolent Commu=
nication: A Language of Life".<br clear=3D"none">It helped me see detriment=
al aspects of English like: "I have to..."<br clear=3D"none">Now I always t=
hink "I choose to... because..."<br clear=3D"none">It also suggests some be=
autiful concepts such as considering:<br clear=3D"none">what do you want th=
e person's reason to be for doing something for you.<br clear=3D"none"><br =
clear=3D"none"><span class=3D"yiv1744805549_username"><span class=3D"yiv174=
4805549GFP-UI5CA1B yiv1744805549g-hovercard" style=3D"color:rgb(34, 34, 34)=
;">stela selckiku: <br clear=3D"none"></span></span><blockquote class=3D"yi=
v1744805549gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex;">Perhaps the most perfectly Lojba=
nic of Lojban sentences is the sentence "
 ", the empty sentence, which of course asserts nothing at all about=20
anything, and does so in perfect elegance. All of Lojban springs from=20
this emptiness.<br clear=3D"none"></blockquote><div><br clear=3D"none">Have=
 you ever read anything by Walter Russel?<br clear=3D"none">From his book "=
A new concept of the Universe" (rather fitting for this conversation):<br c=
lear=3D"none"><i>If the power to cause motion is in the balanced state of r=
est, it necessarily follows that energy is in the stillness of rest and not=
 in<br clear=3D"none">motion which is effect of cause. </i><div class=3D"yi=
v1744805549yqt3057793790" id=3D"yiv1744805549yqtfd62643"><br clear=3D"none"=
></div></div></div></div><div class=3D"yiv1744805549yqt3057793790" id=3D"yi=
v1744805549yqtfd79669">

<div></div>

-- <br clear=3D"none">
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br clear=3D"none">
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubsc=
ribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@=
googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br clear=3D"none=
">
To post to this group, send email to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" yma=
ilto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:lo=
jban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
Visit this group at <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" target=3D"_blank" hr=
ef=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http://groups.google.com/group=
/lojban</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
For more options, visit <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" target=3D"_blank=
" href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/o=
ptout</a>.<br clear=3D"none"></div></div></div><br><br></div>  </div> </div=
>  </div> </div></body></html>

<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_889999_832515269.1422398168050--