From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Sep 01 15:37:25 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KaI1U-0002da-RL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:37:25 -0700 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.241]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KaI1R-0002dH-VW for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:37:24 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1737412rvf.46 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:37:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7zcv/JU34HfauSr+D6hjVa8ZX4/QO1AAr5SFg1fgwOI=; b=BNKujrN10A7KhXDp9QToKyNQmKJqKf0iKmQRRzrAxRxDzGO0yFdf9hgzKbtuWmElGs JeeVhBox20eNcLrWuK70FD32twh9e6ouN1QgLQDnh3BnFwH2jBoBehzOVv3wxI8lw6TI F2OScNax+v1TIZ8aFBLpWSRGPdzDbskn62wqA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=Klh9km15BxWYFSKOILD1BORkYdQB2a7UevIv5PM0HSxmOTHDKUVMmPQq4yJFlEf+eD iSUxvZHa5qklUusiIgyWuA3r14YUCQ0JfYyuj2ZDY4Dq4pGqT+Nq3KWsWMxgfcizkK+n u8NHNeeBAqwQ4ncZevtv6ezy5OIZwOQ+BbDW4= Received: by 10.140.127.13 with SMTP id z13mr3731623rvc.194.1220308640807; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.211.15 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560809011537i54345eebk260c95e46369578@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:37:20 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: LA/LO/LE: Three Perspectives on Language In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14695 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Brett Williams wrote: > LA > > LA is the easiest gadri to explain and to use. LA isolates one of the > most fundamental properties of language: That an arbitrary sound can > indicate an arbitrary referent in the world. That sounds right. > With LA we have complete > freedom to use this power of language. We can name anything any name, even > if the thing is already named or the name is already taken. From the > perspective of LA, words are just sounds, which anyone can attach freely to > anything. With LA, we are each Adam. This part is not so clear though. Take the name {lojban} for example. Yes, we could use {la lojban} to refer to Esperanto, but doing that would be no less confusing than using {lo perli} to talk about apples. And from the other side, we could make up some idiosyncratic name like {lodjiklang} and use it to refer to Lojban, but that's no different than what we can do with {lo}, for example if we decide to use {lo grutrpome} instead of {lo plise} to talk about apples. So this does not seem to be an essential difference between la and lo. Perhaps because the creation or assignment of proper names is more frequent than the creation of new common names, that gives rise to the illusion that we have total freedom with them, but I think this is just a matter of degree: there are some proper names that are as well established as common names, and conversely some common names that can be as freshly created as proper names. la/lo don't care either way. > LO > > With LO we move into another fundamental property of language: It is > spoken in communities, and within those language communities sounds are more > firmly associated > with meanings. Words have not just meanings to particular speakers in particular > circumstances, but meanings which > persist stably and are collectively recognized. In the case of > LO, what we're talking about specifically is the meanings of the words of > Lojban, as agreed by the community as a whole. This > pool of shared meanings is the fundamental resource we all draw on in using > Lojban to communicate. This part doesn't really differ from names. It's not a requirement for {lo} that it be used with words known to the whole speech community. {lo} can just as well be used for technical terms known to a few, with nonce short-lived words, even nonsense words invented for the current convesation. {lo} doesn't care how well established the word is. > A word is like a box. Each box has a label on it, such as "plise". > Together we form a consensus about what sort of things we expect to be > inside of a box labelled "plise" (namely, apples). If you have some apples > you want to refer to, you can put them into the box that everyone has agreed > about, so that when they see the label on the box they'll know what's > inside. Saying LO is thus a promise that what we're referring to really-is > the sort of thing we've all become accustomed to putting in that sort of > box. > Once you've taken it that far, though, you can go ahead and take it to > the next level of abstraction: You can manipulate the boxes themselves, > without even bothering to put anything in them. That is, you can say "mi > djica lo nu mi ponse lo plise" (I want to possess something in a box > labelled "plise"), and rather than thinking of a particular apple which > you're imagining putting into the box, you're just asking for one of those > "plise" boxes, because you want the sort of thing which we all agree is > kept in that sort of box. This part sounds right. (Minor point: in your example, the sort of thing you want will be kept in the "nu mi ponse lo plise" box, not in the "plise" box.) So {lo} is used to talk about things in word-boxes, while {la} is used to talk about things with word-tags stuck to them. But some tags may be just as permanent as some boxes, and we can create new boxes just as we can create new tags. Perhaps it's easier with the new tags in the sense that anyone that sees us sticking it to the thing will immediately be able to use it, while a new box may require some explaining to do to make sure others understand what kind of things are meant to go there. Showing some of the things that can go there may not be enough to tell what all the things that can go there are. > LE > > When you say LE you are saying what box you are using, but you > don't implicitly promise that you'll really > put in the box what we've all agreed is the normal thing to put in the box. So with {le} we (mis)use a box as if it were a sticker label. No wonder it won't stick for long. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.