Message-Id: <199602291222.HAA04518@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 29 Feb 1996 06:44:41 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Cultural neutrality
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length: 1523

Edward Cherlin:
>Anyway, Lojban isn't supposed to be culturally neutral. The whole point of
>the experiment was to determine whether a new language would produce a new
>culture.

Lojban's requirement for cuoltural neutrality was not the version that you
throiughly derided.  It is for one thing combined to the linguistic arena -
no language and no language feature is superior to any other based on the
culture that it associated with.  But Lojban's cultural neutrality is tied to
the parallel ideal of minimizing metaphysical assumptions in the language
design.  We thus do not assume that a singular/plural distinction is
important becasue some such a distinction is not needed in some languages
(and they are not inferior by that lack of distinction).

Only in the firm insistance on inclusion of the apparatus of logic does Lojban
strongly deviate from metaphysical parsimony, because that is the supposed
basis of the Sapir-Whorf test.  Thus we in theory have a middle ground on all
issues except one in which we have an extreme ground, and thus we presume that
strong deviations from norms can be attributed to the extreme logical
metaphysics.  I myself don't really buy this, but it is an assumption of the
project, and even I don't feel at liberty to change fundamental design
assumptions and goals; besides, it serves as a useful basis for making
decisions - when in doubt, split the difference and be "neutral".

lojbab

PS that should have been "confined" in the second line, if anyone did not
figure it out...