From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jul 07 18:01:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fz1CG-0003lB-Vb for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:01:25 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.194]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fz1CF-0003l4-TQ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:01:24 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 4so1955373nzn for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QtOl/YkGR6cNJu0wbEcG7D4+H89kM3n1uj8fXYJ6grKm1RehgBK1Y3d7BC9kCAF10CC5a/EQfKxZgzKbDXpN6M+dKn6zB63hDY6zwILbv6tRAlaaFFiN8ZLYgHzg8hVUOkjGvRWvYQrPDBmPx0xCWkRzoJUKyVeoTUno195w8f8= Received: by 10.36.25.2 with SMTP id 2mr3146260nzy; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [70.224.74.45]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 15sm2824173nzn.2006.07.07.18.01.21; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44AF0325.2070709@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:58:13 -0400 From: Hugh O'Byrne User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] ZOI and culture neutrality Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 11972 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hobyrne@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Background: Lojban has a structure, the ZOI selma'o (CLL page 477). Within written Lojban, it provides a means of using an alternate orthography. This is advantageous, in that people who are familiar with alternate orthographies are free to use them if they wish. Within spoken Lojban, ZOI provides a means of distinguishing two words which not homophones, in their native language, but that when mapped onto the Lojban phonemes, would effectively become homophones. This is advantageous in that needless ambiguity is not enforced upon expressing foreign words in Lojban. Observation: Orthographies and phonemes are tied to culture. Lojban is intended to be culture-neutral (CLL page 3). Subtle loopholes arise. In writing a Lojban text, a Lojbanist familiar with an alternate orthography can choose to use it to make his job easier (e.g. by using the text "la'o dy. Goethe .dy."). In some cases, e.g. if he wishes to use a particular foreign word that either uses a sound not native to Lojban, or would be needlessly ambiguated as described above, the writer *must* use ZOI. Loophole one: Ideally, the writer (if he has taken enough care) should be able to give his text to *any* other Lojbanist, even one with *no* cultural (specifically, orthographic) knowledge outside of Lojban itself, and that second Lojbanist should be able to read aloud the text flawlessly. This is not the case with the current system. Loophole two: The writer knows what he wrote, so imagine *he* reads it aloud. A third fluent Lojbanist, again, even one with *no* cultural knowledge outside of Lojban itself, should ideally be able to transcribe the spoken text flawlessly. This is not the case with the current system (at least, not as much as it could be). Proposal: That the Lojban community address both of these loopholes, and attempt to close them. Details: There are many solutions. One is to change none of the fixed rules in place, and violate the culture-neutral value, and require that all Lojbanists who want to claim superior fluency (not superfluence!) know the spelling and pronounciation of 'Goethe' just in case it ever comes up. This is the current situation, except it is not made explicit in CLL that a Lojbanist particularly *should* know the word 'Goethe'. Another is to do away with the ZOI selma'o altogether. I opine this is suboptimal too. It has distinct advantages; some important ones are given above. Perhaps the minimilist way to 'address' both of these loopholes would be to put an addendum on Chapter 19, section 10; something along the lines of: "There are issues with ZOI.". Perhaps with elaborations, such as a description of the two loopholes mentioned above. Perhaps with something gentle at the end too, along the lines of "Such borderline cases should be avoided as a matter of good style", though this is not nearly as easy an issue to overcome as the one illustrated by 10.3 and 10.4 on page 478 (where I lifted the quote). Specific choices of orthography are not *imposed* by the current system, and there are existing phonetic orthographies (as to the necessity of 'phonetic', see below), so _that_ option is always open. But there is still a choice of several of them, so even a pair of Lojbanists who believe in the value of a culture-neutral orthography may not communicate their most effectively if they made different choices. A commonly agreed-upon standard orthography would facilitate unity in the (admittedly small) community, and (I propose) would be a first step in the direction of closing the two loopholes, still without changing any of the fixed rules already in place. This is the first *task* I propose, towards the overall goal of the proposal stated above. The selection of one culturally-neutral phonetic alphabet as a 'preferred' one of the Lojban community. The optional nature of this feature would retain all the current advantages of the language, and invalidate none of the existing text. Adopting the feature would provide common ground for 'super-fluent' Lojbanists to read aloud and transcribe each others' work with differing, or nonexistent, external cultural orthographical knowledge, in a way that avoids both loopholes. Discussion on other possible solutions is open. The recommended 'new orthography' mentioned above (in the point I favour) *must* be phonetic - in that it must make a distinction between any two sounds that fall into different phonemes of *any* language to be used with ZOI. This is the only way to entirely avoid enforcing needless ambiguity, as described above. Point of opinion: Representation of features of phones, while not a necessity, would be a desirable feature. -- Good night, and have a rational tomorrow! mi'e .xius. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.