Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:14:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711161014.FAA06174@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Irony: Necessity of Non-Verbal Communication with Lojban X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 800 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 16 05:14:29 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1997-11-14 10:12, Logical Language Group wrote: ... >>I agree that Lojban should be capable of expressing anything otherwise >>non-verbal (though it is difficult to use only Lojban to point to >>something) > >The imaginary journey tense system helps to some extent here. But if I have a thousand identical objects in a big heap, and I wish to refer to a particular one with {ti}, typically my only practical choice is to physically point to it -- a long string of VA and FAhA cmavo isn't going to cut it. Now this is non-verbal communication so presumably not itself Lojban. If I speak Lojban while employing this form of non-Lojban communication, am I not still speaking Lojban (albeit while doing something else simultaneously)? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/