From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jul 08 19:47:21 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 35776 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2006 02:47:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jul 2006 02:47:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2006 02:47:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzPKJ-0005go-UB for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:47:20 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzPJq-0005gJ-Ej; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:46:51 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzPJN-0005g8-SW for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:46:22 -0700 Received: from web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzPJM-0005g1-4s for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:46:21 -0700 Received: (qmail 99201 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jul 2006 02:46:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20060709024618.99199.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:46:18 PDT Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:46:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <44B064B6.2000102@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12008 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=PrmPZX48rwEG5ZRkaf0TC8gUpZEBFQ1pi8AQ5yUPrHJR9xZd6g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26434 Faulty analogy. 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. --- Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > > On 7/8/06, Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > > > >> Point of opinion: Lojban writers should always have the freedom to > >> insert non-Lojban in such a way as that it is always pronouncable to > >> someone who knows all of Lojban, but none of any other language. > > > > I agree. But "knowing all of Lojban" involves knowing how to pronounce > > the 25 Lojban phonemes, it could never involve a requirement of being > > an expert in phonetics. > > Knowing *all* of Lojban (particularly CLL chapter 18) *does* involve the > requirement of being somewhat an expert in mathematics: factorials, > logarithms, vectors and matrices, even calculus! What I propose is no > different, in character: Knowing *sufficient* Lojban for everyday > interactions of 99% of Lojbanists involves only knowing addition and > subtraction, and knowing sufficient Lojban for everyday interactions of > 99% of Lojbanists involves only knowing how to pronounce the 25 Lojban > phonemes. Structure is in place for going much further along one of > those directions, though, for those who wish to do so; why *not* make > structure for the other? > > > Knowing how to read a phonetic alphabet > > requires a very specialized sort of knowledge, which most speakers of > > any language do not have. > > Knowing how to use calculus also requires a very specialized sort of > knowledge, but I don't see chapter 18 (in whole or in part) as being a > detriment to the language. I'll go further: I see *all* of chapter 18 > as being of benefit to the language, *no* part of it is .aucu'i (at > least in the larger sense, thinking of more than just some, or even > most, individuals' opinions and limitations), which I seem to be sensing > a lot as a justification for the .aunai attitude (which it isn't). > > > All you can do, in any language, when > > introducing foreign words, is to adapt them to the phonology of the host > > language. > > All you can do in any previous language. I see a power that Lojban > (potentially) has, that no other language (to my knowledge) has. I'd be > disappointed to see Lojban restricted by "well this is how it's always > been done before". > > > You can make an effort to maintain feature distinctions that > > are foreign to the host language if you feel like it, but that can never > > be a > > part of being fluent in the language. I could never become fluent in Lojban > > if I had to be able to produce all the phonetic distinctions that exist in > > English, for example, since some vowel distinctions that English makes > > are beyond my capabilities. 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. ZOI gives them the possibility of inserting non-Lojbanic > > distinctions > > if they please, but no guarantee that they will be understood by all fluent > > Lojban speakers. > > I do not doubt or challenge your fluency in Lojban. Respectfully, I > suggest that there are people who are more fluent than you in foreign > languages, and do not have a standardised way to bring their expertise > to bear in Lojban as much as they might have. These people may be more > skilled in some respects than you, indeed more skilled than me, I'll > readily admit, but I do not intend for them to be held back by either of > our limitations. > > Ah-hah. Re-reading, I see now that perhaps you're trying to taking a > different approach to the point than I have addressed so far. I'll > thoroughly analyse one of your sentences (the one I think is the core > one). I'll try to explain the view I have, from the direction I think > you're pointing. > > 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.)" > > > (For any Lojban phoneticians, the most convenient alphabet to use today > > is probably the IPA alphabet, but there is nothing to prevent some future > > Association of Lojban Phoneticians to design and use some other alphabet > > that they find more suitable. But that alphabet could never become a part > > of what you need to know to be an ordinary fluent speaker of Lojban.) > > Wholeheartedly agreed, under those qualifiers: 'need to know', 'ordinary > fluent speaker of Lojban'. Again, it goes to chapter 18 having value > even if most people will skip 50% of it. > > I try to paraphrase your position so I can better understand: Let me > know if I'm putting words in your mouth you don't want there. > > It seems your primary thought is to vote against *any* association > between Lojban and any one particular phonetic alphabet. > > Your secondary thought (thank you for sticking with the issue to have > such deeper thoughts) appears to be: If it comes down to the point > where there *is* a vote on one phonetic alphabet, your vote would be for > IPA. > > My vision may be skewed in this area, but it seems to me that featural > aspects (conspicuously missing from the IPA) are gaining favour in the > group. Not that a vote for IPA will be discounted, I just wanted to > bolster my ego. :) > > -- > 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. > > 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.