Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:13:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711161013.FAA06159@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley Sender: Lojban list From: Ashley Yakeley Subject: Irony: {gerna}- & {javni}- Rules in the Language Definition X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1574 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 16 05:13:52 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU At 1997-11-14 10:12, Logical Language Group wrote: >>>The rules of the language are that the attitudinals are supposed to represent >>>true emotional expression and therefore should match body language. >> >>That's not a language rule. That's an extra-linguistic cultural rule. > >It is a language rule if we want it to be a language rule. Language >rules include how and when to use language. I think you're confusing two different senses of the word 'rule': as grammar or definition {gerna}, and as constraints on human behaviour {javni}. Now the refgram is full of _loi gerna_, which by nature relate to abstract structure, and this is what is normally meant 'rules of language'. But a rule that insists that attitudinals must match body language, is a rule in the sense of {javni}, an almost unconnected meaning of 'rule'. An example of a {gerna}-rule: In Lojban, each selbri has a specified number and type of arguments, known collectively as its ``place structure''. An example of a {javni}-rule: Thou shalt not steal. ... >I have said before that an underlying assumption of Lojban pragmatics is >that it is the speaker's obligation to make himself clear to the >listener. This is a different pragmatic than for English and perhaps >other languages, where the speaker can do whatever the heck he wants and >it is the listener's job to figure it out. I don't think pragmatics are designable: surely they're to be discovered practically? Otherwise, in what sense are they pragmatic? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/