Message-ID: <20060709182107.27747.qmail@web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <44B0CC87.7020901@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality
Content-Length: 9692
Lines: 178

--- Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:

> John E Clifford wrote:
> > Faulty analogy.


years of practice, currently reinforced by the number of dubious analogical arguments recently. 
In this case -- as my comments showed -- a polite way of pointing to what is in fact a false
premise which shows a marked lack of comprehenseion of what is going on.  The argument is
(abbreviated)
MEX is a system for dealing with technical formulae.
Using it involves knowing how to interpret these formulae.
RPA ("P" here being "phonetic")is a system for dealing with technical formulae.
Using it in knowing how to interpret these formulae.
MEX is a part of full Lojban.
Therefore, RPA should be a part of full Lojban

But the second premise is simply false --MEX only requires being able to say the right word for
each symbol of a formula, roughly knowing to say {vy} when you see /v/, whereas using RPA requires
the ability to produce a voiced labiodental fricative when you see /v/, not at all the same sort
of thing.  (There is also the disanalogy that MEX is about grammar and vocabulary while RPA is
about spelling and phonology, but that doesn't seem to important.)

xorxes' argument is better, although one of its premises is also questionable (though I think
correct).

MEX is a system for dealing with a special science.
Making MEX a part of Lojban was a big mistakes.
RPA would be a system for dealing with a specaila science
Therefore, making RPA a part of Lojban would be a big mistake.

The best argument so far is
Lojban claims to have a symbol-sound isomorphism throughout
Quoted foreign expressions in Lojban violate that isomorphism.
Writing them in RPA would restore that isomorphism
Therefore, they ought to be written in RPA.

 Imlicit in this is that quoted foreign expressions in Lojban are part of Lojban.  I take Nora as
saying that is not quite right, but that they are rather versions of ostentation: "He said 'Blah
blah'" is a short hand for "He said this:" Blah blah where the thing is merely diplayed and
pointed at, as would be clearer with "He painted this:" [holds up painting].  this seems to be the
way it works in other languages, so perhaps it is what is intended in Lojban as well. Of course,
virtually the same argument can be turned (and has been)to requiring any "foreign expression " be
transcribed into strict Lojban phonemics.

> 
> How easily you use that phrase.
> 
> Apt analogy.  Lack of vision.

One person's "lack of vision" is anothers "not being taken in by illusion or delusion." What is
the case for your view being visionary rather than just hallucinatious?
 
> >  Chapter 18 doesn't require knowing calculus, etc.  the most it requires is being
> > able to read the symbols or speak the formulae (something that is hard to do in English). 
> Using a
> > phonetic alphabet requires something more, at least in speaking: the ability to reproduce the
> > sounds described (analogous, I think to the ability to do the calculations in mathematics). 
> As I
> > hve said, there is nothing against having the IPA or the like around to be used by those who
> can,
> > but there is no more need to make it a part of Lojban (indeed, it clearly is not as Lojban has
> > been defined over the years) any more than Pinyin is a part of Lojban although it is used by
> them
> > what can in Lojban contexts.
> > The main virtue of the IPA is that those who know phonetics know it (cf. the virtues of the
> Latin
> > alphabet).  If another alphabet -- featural or not -- came along that was generally known and
> > somehow more Lojbanic (however that might be judged), then our preference might go to it.  So,
> I
> > think your task -- if you really want any of this -- is to find (or build) a phonetic alphabet
> you
> > like and get it accepted as a norm in the field.  No one is going to learn phonetics to learn
> > Lojban and no one who knows phonetics is going to learn a new alphabet to learn Lojban.
> 
> zzzzzz... *blink* *blink*  Sorry, almost drifted off there, surrounded
> as I was by soft, fluffy words.  I may have missed something, but I 
> *did* try and follow, and it sounded awfully like "well this is how it's 
> always been done before", which as I said, is a disappointing argument.

Well, we are talking about practicalities, like getting something accepted and then these "what
has always been done" play a role, unless you are willing to do the work of getting something else
to the level of acceptance.  You really should either stay awake or not comment.
 
>   I guess there also was an element of individualism, which I admire 
> somewhat, perverted to antisocialism, which is also disappointing.  I 
> was under the impression there *was* a Lojban *community*, here.  But 
> back to words of substance:

There is, and that is why what is accepted plays such a big role -- call it inertia or whatever.
 
> As I have said, I was hoping for a well-thought-out solution.  If you 
> refuse to (or are unable to) acknowledge any value to the proposal, 
> which I have spent much time pointing out, then you're not the target 
> audience for this discussion; you demonstrate yourself unqualified to 
> be.  This *does* put you in the situation where, if you want to obstruct 
> the idea, you must provide some evidence of *negative* value to it.

Well, since you have yet to present a well though out proposal (this is a habit of yours
apparently), it is hard to know of its value.  Your broad generalizations are quite unproblematic,
but the conclusion you draw from them -- tyhat they should be incorpro0ated (pig in poke) into
Lojban just isn't supported.  I may agree that IPA is unsatisfactory in some way (it is hard to
expand systematically to meet novel sounds for example) and that a better system is possible and
desirable, but it is a long jump from that to buying that we should accept your (not even
sketched) system and further still (in fact quite unrelated) that we should incorporate it into
Lojban.  One step at a time at most.  Incidentally, the fact that I disagree with you does not
immediately disqualify me from taking an informed and sympathetic part in the discussion.
 
> I think perhaps the circle of statements in the middle of my post may be 
> one of the strongest arguing points for this train of thought I've found 
> so far:

The problem with this, as noted at the beginning is that the underlying assumption about what is
happening in Lojban is false (another of your habits  -- you really must learn some Lojban or at
least something about it beyond the first -- erroneous -- page of CLL). 
  
> >>Defintions (for the purposes of the following argument):  "Merely 
> >>fluent" meaning a Lojbanist who knows 25 phonemes and addition and 
> >>subtraction, but doesn't know calculus, and doesn't know phonetics. 
> >>"Super-fluent" meaning a Lojbanist who knows calculus and phonetics. 
> >>(Merely fluent being adequate 99% of the time; I'm not *pushing* 
> >>everyone to be super-fluent, I'm just asking Lojban to be friendly to 
> >>those who are.)
> >>
> >>Quoting your sentence directly for reference:
> >>
> >>"So the only way a writer of Lojban has of inserting non-Lojban in such 
> >>a way that they are sure it will be pronounceable by any fluent Lojban 
> >>speaker is to adapt the non-Lojban to the phonology of Lojban."
> >>
> >>Re-stating the point you make, using my definitions above:
> >>
> >>"The only way a fluent (including both types) writer of Lojban has of 
> >>inserting non-Lojban in such a way that they are sure it will be 
> >>pronounceable by any fluent (merely fluent, *or* better) Lojban speaker 
> >>is to use only the Lojban phonology."
> >>
> >>And it's counterpoint in the mathematical world:
> >>
> >>"The only way a fluent writer of Lojban has of inserting mathematics in 
> >>such a way that they are sure it will be understandable by any fluent 
> >>Lojban reader is to use only addition and subtraction."
> >>
> >>The parallel to my point, which holds in the Lojban-mathematical world:
> >>
> >>"A super-fluent writer of Lojban *has* at his disposal Lojbanic tools to 
> >>express himself in more precision and detail to another super-fluent 
> >>Lojbanist.  (That the audience is no longer as big as *all* fluent 
> >>Lojbanists is not a drawback.)"
> >>
> >>And now *that* counterpoint in the phonetics world:
> >>
> >>"A super-fluent writer of Lojban *should* *have* at his disposal 
> >>Lojbanic tools to express himself in more precision and detail to 
> >>another super-fluent Lojbanist.  (That the audience is no longer as big 
> >>as *all* fluent Lojbanists is not a drawback.)"
> 
> Keeping in mind that this *is* a different issue than is addressed in 
> either "Alphabet proposal one" or "Lojban Alphabet Starter B" (a related 
> issue, but a different one), what do you see as the fatal flaw in the 
> above circle (if indeed you do see one)?

False premise; that is not what MEX does. (as well as the othre problems noted above).

Note, none of this says anything against sommeone incorporating an RPA into his Lojban, just as he
might (we do) incorporate Cyrillic or Devanagari or Hanzi or Pinyin or whatever, particulary in
written quotes.  But none of these things are part of Lojban, even though includsed in written
sentences enclosed in Lojban quotes of a sort.  Why should an RPA be different?  And why, in the
interest of greater freedom, one RPA rather than another or another sort of phonetic alphabet altogether.


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.