From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 09 02:33:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzVez-0005ip-1e for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:33:06 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzVes-0005ib-1s for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:33:01 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 14so1492267nzn for ; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:32:56 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=EeKdXMhF1TAPZyYMpEhKMnddxbZrLCtFMzY49OOXTzzDJV8Ssa1/KZrDwO7IB4oit+ewC0YOWMk5yQieaUerLUWI3th8HXnNECKhwtj1IKwpgmtTwemTJW5lW8CfN+MKuVEOsSRf5LbDoOGBAuWGFuupnZfg875G3pDHXrDpnaw= Received: by 10.36.74.5 with SMTP id w5mr4313317nza; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [70.224.74.45]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id j4sm401825nzd.2006.07.09.02.32.56; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44B0CC87.7020901@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 05:29:43 -0400 From: Hugh O'Byrne User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality References: <20060709024618.99199.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060709024618.99199.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12014 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list John E Clifford wrote: > Faulty analogy. How easily you use that phrase. Apt analogy. Lack of vision. > Chapter 18 doesn't require knowing calculus, etc. the most it requires is being > able to read the symbols or speak the formulae (something that is hard to do in English). Using a > phonetic alphabet requires something more, at least in speaking: the ability to reproduce the > sounds described (analogous, I think to the ability to do the calculations in mathematics). As I > hve said, there is nothing against having the IPA or the like around to be used by those who can, > but there is no more need to make it a part of Lojban (indeed, it clearly is not as Lojban has > been defined over the years) any more than Pinyin is a part of Lojban although it is used by them > what can in Lojban contexts. > The main virtue of the IPA is that those who know phonetics know it (cf. the virtues of the Latin > alphabet). If another alphabet -- featural or not -- came along that was generally known and > somehow more Lojbanic (however that might be judged), then our preference might go to it. So, I > think your task -- if you really want any of this -- is to find (or build) a phonetic alphabet you > like and get it accepted as a norm in the field. No one is going to learn phonetics to learn > Lojban and no one who knows phonetics is going to learn a new alphabet to learn Lojban. zzzzzz... *blink* *blink* Sorry, almost drifted off there, surrounded as I was by soft, fluffy words. I may have missed something, but I *did* try and follow, and it sounded awfully like "well this is how it's always been done before", which as I said, is a disappointing argument. I guess there also was an element of individualism, which I admire somewhat, perverted to antisocialism, which is also disappointing. I was under the impression there *was* a Lojban *community*, here. But back to words of substance: As I have said, I was hoping for a well-thought-out solution. If you refuse to (or are unable to) acknowledge any value to the proposal, which I have spent much time pointing out, then you're not the target audience for this discussion; you demonstrate yourself unqualified to be. This *does* put you in the situation where, if you want to obstruct the idea, you must provide some evidence of *negative* value to it. I think perhaps the circle of statements in the middle of my post may be one of the strongest arguing points for this train of thought I've found so far: >>Defintions (for the purposes of the following argument): "Merely >>fluent" meaning a Lojbanist who knows 25 phonemes and addition and >>subtraction, but doesn't know calculus, and doesn't know phonetics. >>"Super-fluent" meaning a Lojbanist who knows calculus and phonetics. >>(Merely fluent being adequate 99% of the time; I'm not *pushing* >>everyone to be super-fluent, I'm just asking Lojban to be friendly to >>those who are.) >> >>Quoting your sentence directly for reference: >> >>"So the only way a writer of Lojban has of inserting non-Lojban in such >>a way that they are sure it will be pronounceable by any fluent Lojban >>speaker is to adapt the non-Lojban to the phonology of Lojban." >> >>Re-stating the point you make, using my definitions above: >> >>"The only way a fluent (including both types) writer of Lojban has of >>inserting non-Lojban in such a way that they are sure it will be >>pronounceable by any fluent (merely fluent, *or* better) Lojban speaker >>is to use only the Lojban phonology." >> >>And it's counterpoint in the mathematical world: >> >>"The only way a fluent writer of Lojban has of inserting mathematics in >>such a way that they are sure it will be understandable by any fluent >>Lojban reader is to use only addition and subtraction." >> >>The parallel to my point, which holds in the Lojban-mathematical world: >> >>"A super-fluent writer of Lojban *has* at his disposal Lojbanic tools to >>express himself in more precision and detail to another super-fluent >>Lojbanist. (That the audience is no longer as big as *all* fluent >>Lojbanists is not a drawback.)" >> >>And now *that* counterpoint in the phonetics world: >> >>"A super-fluent writer of Lojban *should* *have* at his disposal >>Lojbanic tools to express himself in more precision and detail to >>another super-fluent Lojbanist. (That the audience is no longer as big >>as *all* fluent Lojbanists is not a drawback.)" Keeping in mind that this *is* a different issue than is addressed in either "Alphabet proposal one" or "Lojban Alphabet Starter B" (a related issue, but a different one), what do you see as the fatal flaw in the above circle (if indeed you do see one)? -- Good night, and have a rational tomorrow! mi'e .xius. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.