Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4999df3f-bbbe-4885-997a-2c204183d092@googlegroups.com>
References: <4999df3f-bbbe-4885-997a-2c204183d092@googlegroups.com>
From: Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:32:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJHgu=_fH=8T5hTUJhEiFg8QuhkRYS5GGXrW_j3qtcQKarvU_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Questions about Lojban
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01494310e4d263050dbd1b48
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: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
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:  One thing I feel has been lost in this conversation is there's
    an implicit attitude in a lot of this talk like a language is basically a
    static thing. Like, it has some properties, and you fit it into your brain,
    and then how do those properties affect that brain? But languages aren't
   a fixed static linear process like that. One aspect each language has is its
    capacity to accept new things back into itself. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 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_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [209.85.212.183 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                             domains are different
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (selckiku[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
  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_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
                             EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders

--089e01494310e4d263050dbd1b48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

One thing I feel has been lost in this conversation is there's an implicit
attitude in a lot of this talk like a language is basically a static thing.
Like, it has some properties, and you fit it into your brain, and then how
do those properties affect that brain? But languages aren't a fixed static
linear process like that. One aspect each language has is its capacity to
accept new things back into itself.

English for instance seems to me to have recently become slightly somewhat
more accepting of portmanteaux and novel affixes, which surely means native
speakers of today's English are more likely even in thinking to themselves
to use a novel portmanteau or affixed word. Lojban of course is at a much
more dynamic phase of its development, where radical changes in aesthetic
are still common. But I feel strongly that even beyond this turbulent
stage, Lojban is by its very nature a more dynamic language than English.

The ability of a new or newly used cmavo (Lojban function word) to sharply
transform its surroundings is something that does not and cannot exist in
English. English's power to assist thought consists mostly of providing
seemingly infinite rich bouquets of idiom, just a few of which suffice to
paint a vivid picture. This has a feeling of being enriched by (yet thus
necessarily also constrained and conditioned by) a vast Pandoramic history
(Pandora+panoramic, sorry). Today's Lojban is in comparison a quiet empty
room, the only history a small layer of dust from previous work done to the
magnificent dynamic sparkling machine alone in a corner of our vast hopeful
warehouse.

Where English is a palette with a million beautiful colors mixed ready for
you, Lojban is just primary color tubes-- but with a thousand amazing
little paint mixing machines that make you whole infinite dynamic spectra.
When someone invents a new word of English, you get one new beautiful
color. But if someone thinks of adding to Lojban a simple little tube of
brown, everything everything everything changes.

It's really next to impossible to explain to someone who speaks no Lojban
precisely why a cmavo is more powerful than a new word of English. It feels
like if it were the sort of thing that were easily explained it would also
be the sort of thing you could easily think around. It actually conditions
thought deeply because it's actually rather strange. I thought of
explaining it like this, but it doesn't make sense: Imagine if there were a
new word of English, "flarf," and saying "flarf" didn't exactly mean
anything but rather for the rest of the sentence all the nouns were verbs
and all the verbs were nouns. That doesn't make sense, does it? You just
can't think of that. You can't do that. It would be very hard to do that
and it doesn't even make sense what I'm talking about. Yet, I feel sure
that the fluent Lojbanists who will read this paragraph will think, aha,
yes, that's right, that's true, that is the power of a cmavo. It's a power
that cannot be transplanted into English, where things do not so easily
become one another.  I feel it is a deep deep thought that is not in the
normal English speaker's mind.

<3,
mungojelly (la stela selckiku)

-- 
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.

--089e01494310e4d263050dbd1b48
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">One thing I feel has been lost in this conversation is the=
re&#39;s an implicit attitude in a lot of this talk like a language is basi=
cally a static thing. Like, it has some properties, and you fit it into you=
r brain, and then how do those properties affect that brain? But languages =
aren&#39;t a fixed static linear process like that. One aspect each languag=
e has is its capacity to accept new things back into itself. <br><br>Englis=
h for instance seems to me to have recently become slightly somewhat more a=
ccepting of portmanteaux and novel affixes, which surely means native speak=
ers of today&#39;s English are more likely even in thinking to themselves t=
o use a novel portmanteau or affixed word. Lojban of course is at a much mo=
re dynamic phase of its development, where radical changes in aesthetic are=
 still common. But I feel strongly that even beyond this turbulent stage, L=
ojban is by its very nature a more dynamic language than English. <br><br>T=
he ability of a new or newly used cmavo (Lojban function word) to sharply t=
ransform its surroundings is something that does not and cannot exist in En=
glish. English&#39;s power to assist thought consists mostly of providing s=
eemingly infinite rich bouquets of idiom, just a few of which suffice to pa=
int a vivid picture. This has a feeling of being enriched by (yet thus nece=
ssarily also constrained and conditioned by) a vast Pandoramic history (Pan=
dora+panoramic, sorry). Today&#39;s Lojban is in comparison a quiet empty r=
oom, the only history a small layer of dust from previous work done to the =
magnificent dynamic sparkling machine alone in a corner of our vast hopeful=
 warehouse. <br><br>Where English is a palette with a million beautiful col=
ors mixed ready for you, Lojban is just primary color tubes-- but with a th=
ousand amazing little paint mixing machines that make you whole infinite dy=
namic spectra. When someone invents a new word of English, you get one new =
beautiful color. But if someone thinks of adding to Lojban a simple little =
tube of brown, everything everything everything changes. <br><br>It&#39;s r=
eally next to impossible to explain to someone who speaks no Lojban precise=
ly why a cmavo is more powerful than a new word of English. It feels like i=
f it were the sort of thing that were easily explained it would also be the=
 sort of thing you could easily think around. It actually conditions though=
t deeply because it&#39;s actually rather strange. I thought of explaining =
it like this, but it doesn&#39;t make sense: Imagine if there were a new wo=
rd of English, &quot;flarf,&quot; and saying &quot;flarf&quot; didn&#39;t e=
xactly mean anything but rather for the rest of the sentence all the nouns =
were verbs and all the verbs were nouns. That doesn&#39;t make sense, does =
it? You just can&#39;t think of that. You can&#39;t do that. It would be ve=
ry hard to do that and it doesn&#39;t even make sense what I&#39;m talking =
about. Yet, I feel sure that the fluent Lojbanists who will read this parag=
raph will think, aha, yes, that&#39;s right, that&#39;s true, that is the p=
ower of a cmavo. It&#39;s a power that cannot be transplanted into English,=
 where things do not so easily become one another.=C2=A0 I feel it is a dee=
p deep thought that is not in the normal English speaker&#39;s mind. <br><b=
r>&lt;3, <br>mungojelly (la stela selckiku)<br><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 />

--089e01494310e4d263050dbd1b48--