From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 09 16:48:39 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fzj0e-0001mX-Cb for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:20 -0700 Received: from web30412.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.201.235]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fzj0c-0001mQ-Sd for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:20 -0700 Received: (qmail 49571 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jul 2006 23:48:17 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=n2XgbHQtnzwdBFEK3BxeR/N2InReTGleuSLL8/CY91qAF6GeIjG/dCLa5RglukW0i9+jpktOMyaIiaEfK3MI0b808IisikFxcc/HNBzVrgchBBf4irl5a9IW5C6e2X0SQ3E8quliPv1hMVLZB4z9po/PBzE2Lu1slxtd8hPKJmE= ; Message-ID: <20060709234817.49569.qmail@web30412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [132.178.175.94] by web30412.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:48:17 PDT Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 16:48:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon MacLeod Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <44B0CC87.7020901@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) X-archive-position: 12048 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: eye_onus@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list I have been reading Mr. O'Byrne's postings, recommendations, etc., and I have decided to comment upon them. As a complete beginner, have no fluency inLojban whatsoever. My reasons for learning Lojban are two-fold: I have interest in being able to speak in more than merely my native language, and the concept of a logical language appeals to my mathematically inclined mind. As far as an official alphabet is concerned, whether for Lojban as a whole or merely for accurately transcribing foreign words/sounds, I do not think it is a wise idea. Much better that ways be determined for transcribing Lojban in the myriad already used character sets, as has been and is being done already. I have two reasons for this: First, it is much easier to learn a language when you do not also need to, at the same time, learn an entirely new method of reading. I say this from experience, as I am currently taking nihongo classes, and let me tell you, the hardest part is not learning the konbonwa means good evening, it is learning the 50-odd characters of the hiragana and katakana. Not to mention the kanji. Second, Since Lojban words are spelled exactly as they are pronounced, without exception, it is a relatively easy manner to tranliterate a Lojban word from one character set to another, so long as the character sets involved contain the sounds appropriate. While it is a noble task to make Lojban more- complete, I suppose- by giving said an official alphabet, it would most likely hurt the development of Lojban in both short and long term, due to the difficulty in learning both a new language and character set all at once. I have looked at VS, Lhoerr, and so forth since reading these threads, and I have to say I am personally not willing to learn them. The Latin alphabet is what I know, it works fine for the language I don't want to expend the effort to learn a new character set when the one I *already know* is perfectly acceptable for the needs of the language already. I feel the same way about attempts that have already been made, such as the Tengwar character set. While I think that Lojban looks more asthetic in the Tengwar character set, I have no wish to learn it. I think that your efforts should be applauded, as they indicate that you wish to see the Lojban language flourish, but I feel that they are futile, due to their being, ultimately, unneccesary. For the specific instanceof foreign words being used in a Lojban passage, in my case I would merely look up the word in the appropriate dictionary to determine both the correct pronunciation and meaning of the word, the latter being more important to me, just as I would do were I to encounter a foreign word encountered in an English text. For those that don't know, nihongo is Japanese for "Japanese Language". --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > 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. > > -Jon Jones "I have a brain, I've just lost my mind." -Ian McLeod "As a percentage of total universal knowledge, what I know is statistically insignificant." - me -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version 3.12 GCS>$ d+(++) s++:-- a- C++ UL P L++>+++++ !E W+(++) N+ o? K- !w---- O- M-(+)@ V? PS+++ PE- Y+ PGP- t+ !5-- X(+) R+ !tv-- b+++ DI+ D+ G e* h+* r+(++) y+(++) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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.