Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:59:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711140359.WAA03056@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Non-figurative lojban as a "style" X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1863 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:59:45 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU I propose that rather than worry about figurative Lojban too much we = simply coin some english or lojban terms for two different lojban = "styles" -- one allowing things like unmarked irony, metonymy, allegory, = etc., and one not. (There's probably a better linguistic term for this = -- mode? register? mood? dialect? pragmalect?) =20 And et al are probably right (the little red riding hood example = convinced me) that it would be either futile or boring to try to ban = these things in normal situations among the human lojban speech = community; on the other hand, deliberately culling them from one's = speech or writing will likely be useful when experimenting with software = that tries to process Lojban semantically. =20 Another reason the non-figurative style is useful is for learning the = language. You're more likely to have to exercize your skills in = different language features if you try to say things literally, than if = you throw a few suggestive sumti in random order around a suggestive = selbri, and let the listener prag it all together in the obvious way. = Lojban with pragmatics, among learners, risks devolving into exactly the = situation that And criticized in a previous thread where being = understood (by another speaker with the same cultural background and = native language, probably) is the only criterion of success. Lojbab's non-figurative style of Lojban reminds me of the way characters = in Star Trek (in all it's zillion incarnations) talk to the computers. = I don't know how consistent the writers have been, but the computers = supposedly only understand requests when they are phrased in a very = direct, logical manner. That would seem reasonable to me as an = intermediate step towards true computer language usage, but I hope we're = further along than that when lo 23rd century rolls around. Chris