From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 03 01:16:19 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KanXD-0003m6-EZ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:16:19 -0700 Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.247]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KanWw-0003lO-Nt for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:16:15 -0700 Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 23so6044415agd.7 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:15:50 -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:references; bh=025JgbZUaCfNrttbbB0giLZLZceOUYHJm599hZHSm/s=; b=ZLxPNEnNeHjZbNMgF7JnfgizvPVmLDwP0DAm1CiMzCf0c8ef21k103tfj7GIFp3n9o MMuHp7o0g4Q+PYcelxghBfOxZ8/L0IZKbefI//TzeEugZ/jCZHWf3TNKPjACbWG5XYdK gWaFYRxt8ta5cZ4wiW1UuHMs1aNWhpGUABZHg= 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:references; b=c/+vgMMIXX9Gv62rYZK1RX/lt44YudgPLFDutjejOzAHmtiA6RB2ANQVkW8e9YOYWK 2vAml/Pa+hWGcmVNDFZ68G5P0j1IUMDyICZ+fhwVQi8GKyfSyjQwm4jTU6HgbJ/GYFPG gOPUcRY9kljeu9f9lkcE9RCK6BUpQmLAyZfL0= Received: by 10.142.230.9 with SMTP id c9mr2915125wfh.343.1220429749205; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.51.12 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 01:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 04:15:49 -0400 From: "Brett Williams" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: LA/LO/LE: Three Perspectives on Language In-Reply-To: <925d17560809011537i54345eebk260c95e46369578@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_13024_8586784.1220429749195" References: <925d17560809011537i54345eebk260c95e46369578@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14696 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mungojelly@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_13024_8586784.1220429749195 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 9/1/08, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > > 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, Indeed, I'm forced to agree that how much freedom we have isn't the fundamental distinction. We have complete freedom in all cases, of course-= - we could come up with a whole different language, if we were so dissatisfied. OK so help me dig deeper into what the real distinction is between the LA-space and the LO-space.. There are definitely two different semantic spaces. The main distinction between them is cultural, is how we relate to each of them. We relate to the LA-space by filling it with lots of names of people, some names of places, and not much else. We relate to the LO-space by thinking of it as a bunch of "word= s with meanings" and arguing about place structures.. In putting together the Amber dracyselkei, I've been imagining these characters I'm calling the "crida". The crida speak Lojban with a distinctive style. For instance, they like the construction: "lo lo lo broda ku brode ku brodi". I'm also considering having them use LA-space fo= r some different things, like for instance naming an emotion "xrerx" and then describing someone who's feeling it as "lo cinmo be la .xrerx." 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-live= d > words, even nonsense words invented for the current convesation. {lo} > doesn't care how well established the word is. You can certainly use {lo} with a less established word, but I feel like there's still some distinction there. It's a cultural distinction, again. it's about how we feel about words and their contexts. I feel like all of the brivla in large part go together in one basket in my mind, as "the words of Lojban". Even words which are transient or occasional are somehow part of that same ecosystem. You can tell that people feel something like that, by the way that they react to new words & to synonyms, etc., with an awareness of their relation to the whole. The LA-space is a distinct place, which is also populated-- "cizra" has a meaning in both places, for instance. 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. > We really ought to when inventing new boxes, new brivla, to give a lot of examples. Even most of the gismu are lacking a lot of flesh on their bones, IMHO. mu'o mi'e se ckiku ------=_Part_13024_8586784.1220429749195 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/1/08, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjl= lambias@gmail.com> wrote:

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,


Indeed, I'm forced to agree that how much freedom we have isn't the= fundamental distinction.  We have complete freedom in all cases, of c= ourse-- we could come up with a whole different language, if we were so dis= satisfied.

OK so help me dig deeper into what the real distinction is between the = LA-space and the LO-space..

There are definitely two different sema= ntic spaces.  The main distinction between them is cultural, is how we= relate to each of them.  We relate to the LA-space by filling it with= lots of names of people, some names of&= nbsp;places, and not much else.  We relate&nb= sp;to the LO-space by thinking of it as = a bunch of "words with meanings" and arguing&= nbsp;about place structures.. 

In putting together the Amber dracyselkei, I've been imagining thes= e characters I'm calling the "crida".  The crida speak L= ojban with a distinctive style.  For instance, they like the construct= ion: "lo lo lo broda ku brode ku brodi".  I'm also consi= dering having them use LA-space for some different things, like for instanc= e naming an emotion "xrerx" and then describing someone who's= feeling it as "lo cinmo be la .xrerx."
 

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, wit= h nonce short-lived
words, even nonsense words invented for the current convesation. {lo}
= doesn't care how well established the word is.

You can certainly use {lo} with a less established word, but I feel like t= here's still some distinction there.  It's a cultural distinct= ion, again.  it's about how we feel about words and their contexts= .

I feel like all of the brivla in large part go together in one basket i= n my mind, as "the words of Lojban".  Even words which are t= ransient or occasional are somehow part of that same ecosystem.

You= can tell that people feel something like that, by the way that they react = to new words & to synonyms, etc., with an awareness of their relation t= o the whole.

The LA-space is a distinct place, which is also populated-- "= cizra" has a meaning in both places, for instance.  

 = ;

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
b= e 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
im= mediately be able to use it, while a new box may require some
explainin= g 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.


We really ought to when inventing new boxes, new b= rivla, to give a lot of examples.

Even most of the gismu are lackin= g a lot of flesh on their bones, IMHO.


mu'o mi'e se ckiku

------=_Part_13024_8586784.1220429749195-- 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.