From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jan 02 20:04:08 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 5121 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2007 03:49:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m38.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2007 03:49:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.7) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2007 03:49:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 31824 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2007 03:48:38 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Jan 2007 03:48:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1x7C-0006l8-BK for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:48:34 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1x6o-0006ju-R5; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:48:18 -0800 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) 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) 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 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: -20 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: 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. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.7 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "M@" From: "M@" Reply-To: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Military language X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=0ktjDIc08roRFyP5BNgHgAU_RQsGjnyWnVlso_nWnAG2AwMeJw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27903 ------=_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 thi= s 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’, ̵= 7;to’, ‘pretty’, ‘little’ or ‘girls’ and it wo= uld involve a time, specific coordinates, and maybe a munitions type.  It = also helps that the military has well defined acronyms/abbrevs for nearly everyt= hing.

 

Of course, there can still be misunderstandings, if there is interference and the word ‘na’ d= oesn’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 fr= om happening.

 

--M@

 

From: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Fen Fen
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2= 007 7:01 PM
To: ri
Subject: [lojban] Military language

 

Does language figure into warfare? Do common ambiguitie= s 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 wh= o lives and who dies?
 
This is both of historic importance and also of coming relevance, especiall= y when combined with transhumanistic technologies.
 
ii ru'e

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