From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jan 02 19:47:41 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:47:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1x5x-0006jT-Cf for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:47:17 -0800 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1x5s-0006jF-14 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:47:17 -0800 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b8so1514580ana for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:47:10 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=O3IkI4deH554ZZf5Z/poFxScRBZV03gpGRLv1QBlPRZfXkAFSJ9t7ZMj0n7QxoBsQt0OarczT5dk632tElaNOfbMd2rLqcfyqC4AVisk+cVRqVnCs0O4wnLmnAN5Hsq2PqhXwzoEwpFjUQszniYPch8Kc5fr1n5v84n8Fy0i5V8= Received: by 10.100.5.17 with SMTP id 17mr6355660ane.1167796030397; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from thebee ( [71.196.217.119]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b12sm25024543ana.2007.01.02.19.47.09; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:47:09 -0800 (PST) From: "M@" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Military language Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:47:05 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c72ee9$d72544b0$6601a8c0@hq.squarei.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C72EAF.2AC66CB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Accu207p3nSxZ/N6RGmdtCmkQ6Xf2AAC/X9Q X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: -9 X-Spam-Bar: - X-archive-position: 13463 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C72EAF.2AC66CB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ambiguities are different from misunderstandings. The US military dialect of English isn't a particularly ambiguous one in this day and age. Consider the (ir)regular english phrase, "I'd like you to bomb the pretty little girl's school" for instance. The military translation of that wouldn't involve the words 'I'd', 'like', 'you', 'to', 'pretty', 'little' or 'girls' and it would involve a time, specific coordinates, and maybe a munitions type. It also helps that the military has well defined acronyms/abbrevs for nearly everything. Of course, there can still be misunderstandings, if there is interference and the word 'na' doesn't come through out of "ko na daspo le ckule" bad things would probably happen. And that does cost lives, but the military is doing everything they can to establish protocols to prevent that kind of thing from happening. --M@ _____ From: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Fen Fen Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:01 PM To: ri Subject: [lojban] Military language Does language figure into warfare? Do common ambiguities in English result directly in death, or loss? We have "military time", and various military linguistic traditions "SIR, yes, SIR". The SW hypothesis asks if language influences thought. Does it influence who lives and who dies? This is both of historic importance and also of coming relevance, especially when combined with transhumanistic technologies. ii ru'e ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C72EAF.2AC66CB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ambiguities are different from misunderstandings. The US military dialect of English isn’t a particularly ambiguous one in = this day and age. Consider the (ir)regular english phrase, = “I’d like you to bomb the pretty little girl’s school” for instance. The military translation of that wouldn’t involve = the words ‘I’d’, ‘like’, ‘you’, = ’to’, ‘pretty’, ‘little’ or ‘girls’ and it = would involve a time, specific coordinates, and maybe a munitions type. = It also helps that the military has well defined acronyms/abbrevs for nearly = everything.

Of course, there can still be misunderstandings, if there is interference and the word = ‘na’ doesn’t come through out of “ko na daspo le ckule” bad things would probably happen. And that does cost lives, but the military is = doing everything they can to establish protocols to prevent that kind of thing = from happening.

--M@

From: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org] = On Behalf Of Fen Fen
Sent: Tuesday, January = 02, 2007 7:01 PM
To: ri
Subject: [lojban] = Military language

Does language figure into warfare? Do common = ambiguities in English result directly in death, or loss? We have "military = time", and various military linguistic traditions "SIR, yes, = SIR".

The SW hypothesis asks if language influences thought. Does it influence = who lives and who dies?

This is both of historic importance and also of coming relevance, = especially when combined with transhumanistic technologies.

ii ru'e

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C72EAF.2AC66CB0-- 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.