Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of almikes@aol.com designates 64.12.143.78 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.12.143.78;
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:24:25 +0100
From: "'Wuzzy' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Questions about Lojban
Message-ID: <20150128152425.24c024b6@W5.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <4999df3f-bbbe-4885-997a-2c204183d092@googlegroups.com>
References: <4999df3f-bbbe-4885-997a-2c204183d092@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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:  Am Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:17:18 -0800 (PST) schrieb afkecatha@gmail.com:
    > Assuming that you are familiar with the idea of the Sapir-Whorf > theory,
    which claims that people speaking a different language will > percieve reality
    in a different way, our main question is whether you > would agree with this
    theory or not. First of all, get your facts straight. Fact #1 is that is
   called “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”, not “Sapir-Whorf theory”. It is not
    a scientific theory because it lacks hard high-quality evidence. A hypothesis
    is much weaker, because it is simply an assertion without proof. At least
    the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is testable. [...] 
 
 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: googlegroups.com]
  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)
                             [209.85.223.190 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 -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

Am Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:17:18 -0800 (PST)
schrieb afkecatha@gmail.com:


> Assuming that you are familiar with the idea of the Sapir-Whorf
> theory, which claims that people speaking a different language will
> percieve reality in a different way, our main question is whether you
> would agree with this theory or not.=20
First of all, get your facts straight. Fact #1 is that is called
=E2=80=9CSapir-Whorf hypothesis=E2=80=9D, not =E2=80=9CSapir-Whorf theory=
=E2=80=9D.
It is not a scientific theory because it lacks hard
high-quality evidence. A hypothesis is much weaker, because it is simply
an assertion without proof. At least the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is
testable.

And to answer your question: Maybe? I am not really sure I know only of
a single empiric study testing the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis. The finding is: Your native language indeed kinda
shapes your thought. But this effect, the so-called Whorfian effect is
quickly gone as soon as one knows more than just one's native language.

Here it is:
http://junq.info/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=3D37

Other than that, research about this hypothesis seems to be rare.
And I do not want to judge whether above study constitutes
high-quality evidence.

> Does being able to speak in a
> different, logical language also mean that you are able to think in a
> different, logical manner?
In my humble unscientific opinion: Not neccessarily. It is easy to say
something completely illogical and nonsensical yet completely
grammatically correct in Lojban.
The same is true for English and probably almost other languages on the
planet as well.

For example, it is grammatically correct to say in English:

    I live in Hamburg.
    Therefore, my house is blue.

But obviously it is completely illogical, the fallacy is called
=E2=80=9Cnon-sequitur=E2=80=9D. The translation into Lojban is:

    mi xabju la xamburg
    .i se ni'i bo lo zdani be mi cu blanu

This is a grammatically correct utterance in Lojban, but it is
as illogical as the English original.


> And seeing that Lojban (most probably) is
> not your first language, do you believe that people are able to learn
> to change the way they percieve reality, just like they are able to
> learn a new language? 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 different ways?
Yes.
But keep in mind: Belief is =E2=80=9Cto hold something true without evidenc=
e=E2=80=9D,
so my answer is pretty useless. I won't deny that I have beliefs, but I
just take them really serious. I prefer knowledge over beliefs.

> Is this the reason
> you are so interested in Lojban, because it enables you to think and
> percieve the world more logically?
No.

> And if not, where did your
> interest for the Lojban language come from?
I stumpled upon this langauge by going through the darkest corners of
the World Wide Web. As I found www.lojban.org, I bacame intested
because of how it was advertised there. Yes, I admit it, I swallowed
it completely, and I do not regret it.

My main motivation to keep going is because of the interesting grammar,
that there a no =E2=80=9Csilent=E2=80=9D (unspoken) words or grammatical ma=
rks, that
new words, even loan words, can be coined in a regular way, because of
a full set of logical connectives, because I personally like the
predicate system over the nouns/vers/adjectives/etc. system (Lojban has
no nouns, verbs and adjectives, it uses a concept called
=E2=80=9Cbrivla=E2=80=9D (=E2=80=9Cpredicate words=E2=80=9D) instead) and b=
ecause of a handful of other
grammatical and syntactical features which are either not present in
German and English or only in a limited or chaotic or unsystematic way,
i.e. interjections.
In short, Lojban is interesting to me because it looks far more
structured than English and German grammatically. German and English
look chaotic and clumsy to me when directly compared to Lojban. ;-)

But most importantly, I kept going just for fun. :-)


co'o

(This is =E2=80=9CGood-bye!=E2=80=9D in Lojban.)


--=20
Wuzzy
XMPP: Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de
E-Mail: wuzzy2@mail.ru

--=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.