Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:37:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711260237.VAA07323@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Irony and Cultural Neutrality X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2478 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 25 21:37:34 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >> Dealing with people from other cultures can be stressful. > >I quite agree. But talking to Nepalis is only one application of Lojban. Indeed. But cultural neutrality among other things requires that one not assume thatthe listener shares your culture. S/he/it may not be Nepali, but also may not understand unmarked irony. In using English, you can rely on the English-speaking cultrual rules which include and allow for irony within the idiom. Lojban has no idiom, and, while you may at this time know that any listener to your Lojban understands English, you cannot assume this is true in the long term, and had better learn good Lojbanic speaking habits. (And of course irony is sometimes lost on English speakers as well, especially in print, so it isn;t all that good an idea anyway in printed text). Cultural neutrality means that among other things you minimize the assumptions with regard to what will be understood without making it explicit where possible. Marking irony when you feel compelled to use it is surely in keeping with this. >But at this point the question arises as to whether Lojban is >essentially a language as a map between text and meaning (gerna, but >including meaning), with secondary notes as to recommended use, I don't accept this limited definition of "language". Nor, for example, does Crystal in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. >or rules >defining a community (javni), mandating a particular use of a language Nor do I think that this definition is all that correct. Indeed, I think that the focus on "rules" of whatever kind is not part of the definition of language at all. Rather I see most of language (but not all) to be abiding by "conventions" (which are agreements and not rules per se) within communications groups to enable communication within the group. Violate conventions and yyou still might communicate so the language still "works", but you have also broken the tacit "agreement" and therefore to some extent ostracized yoruself from the norm. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.