Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rEkOr-00007GC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 22:52 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9178; Mon, 05 Dec 94 22:52:53 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9175; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 22:52:38 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9910; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:49:21 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:37:38 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 05 Dec 94 00:59:29 T.) Content-Length: 1367 Lines: 29 Goran: > > Lo Lojbo strikes me as a very Western, indeed a very glico culture. > > We communicate mainly in English. And, for instance, Lojbab has > > observed that for some reason there are a disproportionate number > > of libertarians among its ranks. Cultural neutrality was surely > > part of the language's ideals, when it was designed, but the outcome > > will depend on who uses it. > > I ba'e like the idea of cultural neutrality gi'e believe that jboklu > should be separate kulnu rather than synonym for gliklu, regardless > of its membership. I didn't mean to oppose cultural neutrality, or to advocate anglocentricity. Indeed, I do think that jboklu is pleasantly different from gliklu. I merely observe that it seems to be the case that gliklu is what jboklu is closest to. If this is true, then I'm sure it is despite the designers' most scrupulous efforts. [Indeed, in one respect I think the desire to avoid being malglico has gone full cirle and ended up very malglico indeed: I am thinking of the lack of any convenient way to make the logically and typologically important distinction between singular and plural (suhore is a bit of a mouthful) - my reading of this is that it results from a desire to be unEnglish, even though number distinctions are widespread among languages. Apologies if my guess at the history of this is wrong.] ---- And