From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 17 17:51:16 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kg7jo-0003kQ-JE for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:16 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kg7jk-0003kB-HP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:16 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z59so2621317pyg.30 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:11 -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=Hmg0uYsw3UE8CSkYD2rz6TnN1S24DST06RISenEfh8s=; b=Mt+0SNfiv+Qvh36keeaGTsgFdvUSPkEXRov4xv16CC0oXph003Yx/ShY15E/fYyBTi C200ZKifvEt8X6nqcpt95lAiCtdW4yeM5P0xnizJjHdG/MaTBHyyYvmNmXFwQBxL8kf0 DfcNXK8PXejvYrIkX7Dl6Z8Dssz2VC/vYuX3Y= 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=KuuSxbACjrkxG1GoFnQwg+zblxOE2nq4mnM6XaPFN7x3cpC3dAzcmjWzf7XVWYbSRj kPIWkx4kB0sr2pJWGpdzmwVNsKJnvEG9k6tcOPeZi5TTmzM4fJr+qrBMeunGY/ANwkng hgtKKDW5CTdukfTYSJocuDGpPPO2tH6N9NHaU= Received: by 10.142.169.4 with SMTP id r4mr1159593wfe.63.1221699070444; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.51.12 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:51:10 -0400 From: "Brett Williams" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: How many fluent speakrs of Lojban are there? In-Reply-To: <20080917194329.GG7580@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17563_23607257.1221699070439" References: <975a94850809132244tdf5f00fm941ba3703635da34@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30809161756x2b7d69d8l5874e9b6b36e2e66@mail.gmail.com> <20080917194329.GG7580@digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14771 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_17563_23607257.1221699070439 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 9/17/08, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > I have a *completely* non-professional suspicion I've been holding > on to for a while: I wonder if Lojban would be easier for autistics > to communicate in, because of the attitudinals and the strict > structure? > > If so, that'd be an interesting semi-Sapir-Whorf effect. > I'm diagnosed with Asperger's, a related condition to autism, and I find Lojban much easier to communicate in. My impression is that it's only in small part because of the structure of the language, and more directly because of the attitude of the community toward the use of the language. For instance, it's not just that there are attitudinals like {.ui} or {.ii}, but that there is this *directness* collectively understood in the semantics of them: You really do say {.ui} because you feel happy, and {.ii} because you feel scared. And you can say {.ui} in *any* circumstance where you feel happy-- English has a word "wee!", but you can use it only a certain social configuration: It's casual, childish, frivolous, etc. Because Lojban's words have this feeling of being "logical", in this aesthetic sense of being above the fray, they lack some of the implicit social patterns (confusing to autistic spectrum people) that are hidden in most natlang words. My belief about Sapir-Whorf is that thought is somewhat strongly conditioned by language, but mostly by unconscious functions of language. By sharing a label that implicitly groups some referents, selbangu collectively establish socially constructed divisions in reality. Those territorial lines between semantic spaces are constantly shifting unconscious landscapes, and the dense information stored in those collective thought-pools is repeatedly communicated to all of the selbangu along with the superficial content of each utterance. I believe therefore that Lojban's future effect on the human mind is as half-complete as the semantic pictures underlying the gismu places. Only the most used places have the awake living character of well-loved words. Most of our language is sitting dusty and dry. I think there's a tremendous amount of unused potential storage space in those unconscious semantic terrains, and what we put into those deep meanings will determine much of the character of what it's like to think in Lojban in the future. mu'o mi'e se ckiku ------=_Part_17563_23607257.1221699070439 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/17/08, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

I have a *completely* non-professional suspicion I've been holding<= br> on to for a while: I wonder if Lojban would be easier for autistics
= to communicate in, because of the attitudinals and the strict
structur= e?

If so, that'd be an interesting semi-Sapir-Whorf effect.


I'm diagnosed with Asperger's, a related condi= tion to autism, and I find Lojban much easier to communicate in.  My i= mpression is that it's only in small part because of the structure of = the language, and more directly because of the attitude of the community to= ward the use of the language.  For instance, it's not&nb= sp;just that there are attitudinals like {.ui} or = {.ii}, but that there is this *directness* collect= ively understood in the semantics of them: Yo= u really do say {.ui} because you feel happy,=  and {.ii} because you feel scared.  And you = can say {.ui} in *any* circumstance where you feel&nbs= p;happy-- English has a word "wee!", but you = can use it only a certain social configuration: It's&nbs= p;casual, childish, frivolous, etc.  Because Lojban'= ;s words have this feeling of being "log= ical", in this aesthetic sense of being = above the fray, they lack some of the implici= t social patterns (confusing to autistic spectrum = people) that are hidden in most natlang words.
 
My belief about Sapir-Whorf is that thought is somewhat strongl= y conditioned by language, but mostly by unconscious functions of language.=  By sharing a label that implicitly groups some referents, selbangu&n= bsp;collectively establish socially constructed divisions in reality.  = ;Those territorial lines between semantic spaces are constantly shifting un= conscious landscapes, and the dense information stored in those collective = thought-pools is repeatedly communicated to all of the selbangu along with = the superficial content of each utterance.  I believe&n= bsp;therefore that Lojban's future effect on the hu= man mind is as half-complete as the semantic = pictures underlying the gismu places.  Only the&nb= sp;most used places have the awake living character&nbs= p;of well-loved words.  Most of our language = is sitting dusty and dry.  I think there'= s a tremendous amount of unused potential storage space= in those unconscious semantic terrains, and what we put into those deep me= anings will determine much of the character of what it&= #39;s like to think in Lojban in the future. 
 
mu'o mi'e se ckiku 
 
------=_Part_17563_23607257.1221699070439-- 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.