From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Nov 14 06:37:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 14:37:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 78573 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 14:36:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 14:36:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 14:36:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAEEavE14906 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:36:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:36:56 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12130 On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Craig wrote: > >I agree completely. In English, questions and emotions are expressed > >using entirely different grammar; in Lojban, they are expressed with the > >same grammar, and this is wonderfully illustrated by the fact that 'ui' > >and 'xu', concepts which we would not think of relating in English, share > >the same selma'o. > > I like the fact that .ui and xu have the same grammar. But it is silly to > claim that answering two questions about grammar which are really quite > different with the same answer means that they were the same question all > along. This is not a case of quantum physics where once the answers are > known to be the same, the questions become the same. But most of you haven't > realized that, because you are stuck thinking about them as the same due to > selma'o .ui! > > Imagiine that prior to reading the Book, Jimbob learns about selma'o. So he > asks me, "What selma'o is .ui in?" I tell him, "UI." He asks what UIs do, > and I say that all but one of them show emotions, being in the grammatical > class (se cmavo) that we call interjections in English. But xu has a > radically different grammatical meaning. It got stuck in UI because it acts > like the real UIs, but it is just there to ask yes or no questions. Jimbob > says, "That's stoopid. Why are they in the same class, when the only > similarity is where you can put them?" And then, (a'o'ecai) the entire > jboste achieves enlightenment. Why not treat this with a more Sapir-Whorf attitude, and ponder the deep meaning behind the FACT that xu is in UI? Maybe a question is really an attitude after all. If you were a linguist investigating the language of a newly discovered tribe far away, would you tell them their grammatical structures were stupid and needed fixing? You would be accused of the worst sort of hegemonic imperialism. Well, why are you trying to assert your Englishistic biases upon Lojban? -- I hope they confuse the two and toss away the lit flare while holding the lit dynamite stick as a statue of Liberty Torch. That would make my day- for at least a 1/4 hour. -- Fernando