From lojban+bncCOWVnJObDhDK-ufsBBoEdDfZuQ@googlegroups.com Mon Apr 04 10:18:20 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q6nPq-0005mv-Kw; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:18:20 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf6919447qwh.16 for ; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:18:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=0cRxksANiaNJKycoVL27C9OAx7ruQH/tJeOoan6pDcw=; b=ppw+sYb/ugTiIwL610ZPHJKXNpGp64RrVQZ5/NtzTjdLLUpHCjx3u2K/GtZiSgScbt IeOIzUiVA2eK+C8qT95TzlNkGVWIeMYE1qeQ35387J1scQykQUsBnbbjGU344vRq1x1Z qAmbopUMHO25wlUB1WxDahgih785vuGqVmTN0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=ZZNT2R7kxi+Z0/8X7gjIpZCsDfdpq4yyR8h8mUjbL0jxw+8hP6+nXfi5WHfAC79iI3 Zs7i7i6rc3cJYtYCD5HbmZBmU8dDXV11v/bOcQfg1FcXZj4UInvmu+xcgjpOaFKsJkW7 m/ga/hqjlnmYdnOOPNHIWGCE2Va2CPcWtiN5w= Received: by 10.224.33.199 with SMTP id i7mr359621qad.24.1301937482391; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.135.76 with SMTP id m12ls881877qat.0.p; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.214.129 with SMTP id ha1mr271748qab.6.1301937481871; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.21.154 with SMTP id j26msqab; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.0.66 with SMTP id 2mr1476716vdc.19.1301929932775; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.0.66 with SMTP id 2mr1476715vdc.19.1301929932751; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d14si1217771vbv.1.2011.04.04.08.12.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of joelofarabia@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.182; Received: by mail-qy0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 27so4324314qyk.20 for ; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.200.198 with SMTP id ex6mr6047505qab.136.1301929932334; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.2.141 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0a74da06-07cf-4b52-a329-ed0ebbae2f5b@u8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> References: <0a74da06-07cf-4b52-a329-ed0ebbae2f5b@u8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:12:12 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Re: I love Lojban's approach, but what's the deal with place tags? From: J T To: lojban X-Original-Sender: joelofarabia@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of joelofarabia@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=joelofarabia@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fafe723b0fc04a0192ff0 --20cf300fafe723b0fc04a0192ff0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can't see my post in the discussions. Is there a problem? On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Joel T. wrote: > Hi all Lojbanists... > > First of all... Wow! Well done to everybody who's worked so hard with > this language over the years. I applaud the scientific objectives of > the Lojban project and the tirelessness of its community. > > I discovered Lojban while doing researching for a hobby I pursue off > and on: a universal semantic writing system/syllabary. Imagine a > Blissymbols-Sona hybrid and you've got the general idea. After making > some headway on grammar it turns out that I'd stumbled on a Lojban- > style predicate logic approach, though I hadn't thought of it in those > terms. > > Perhaps I should introduce myself properly: I have no formal training > as a linguist per se, but I am an English-Turkish bilingual with > training and several years' experience as an translator and > interpreter. I often find when reading up on linguistic theory that I > am just learning the proper terminology for things I have already > worked out "in the field." Although, don't get me wrong, I'm sure I > still have much to learn. > > I just wanted to share my (probably flawed) impressions about Lojban > after taking my first few lessons on Lojban for Beginners by Robin > Turner and Nick Nicholas (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/ > lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html). Maybe I'm looking at the glass > half empty, and you can help me find a different perspective. > > As I said, I earn my keep by working with English, which relies on > word order, and Turkish, which uses case endings. Switch two words in > an English sentence and the meaning can be the opposite of what it was > before. Completely randomize the words in a Turkish sentence and it > usually means the same thing. I had always thought the two systems > were mutually incompatible. > > With Lojban, it feels like I'm being taught both systems at once: > Place structure (like English) and place tags (like Turkish). But > that's not the worst part. I have to be ready for a sentence > containing any possible combination of the two! > > I know you will say that Lojban dictates word order, so the place tags > system is not akin to Turkish. But if I'm using place tags, > semantically speaking there's nothing stopping me from doing what I > want with word order. This is what happens in Turkish. Technically the > verb is supposed to come at the end of the sentence, and this is the > convention in written communication and publishing. But day-to-day, > people use "devrik c=FCmleler" (flipped sentences) all the time. > Although the Turkish Language Institute might frown on such usages as > being "wrong", they're an indispensible part of the language. > Sometimes the flavour of a "devrik c=FCmle" is completely different to > the "correct" word order. > > If you're serious about letting usage dictate the direction the > language takes, you have to take this possibility into account. IMO. > It starts when people get into "bad habits", like using place tags to > amend sentences after they've been said. Then these usages start to > assume new roles, like adding emphasis. Before you know it the > language has whole new features you never planned for. I would venture > that this would almost certainly happen in any rigorous Sapir-Whorf > test. > > In any case, surely running two systems side-by-side is asking for > dialectisation (is that a word?), where speakers in one area get used > to one system while speakers in another prefer the other? > > Another grumble is that, if you'll grant me that place tags basically > amount to a case system, you've got a language where the case system > is irregular for practically every single verb (gismu?) with 3 or more > places. I understand the concerns about semantic inaccuracy. So invent > more cases. How many do you want, 5, 15, 50? I'd learn them all. I'd > rather learn 50 regular place tags than 5 irregular ones multiplied by > however many hundred verbs you have. Maybe I'm missing something here, > but it feels like the Lojban case tag system complicates things for no > good reason the same way that using abstract symbols instead of an > alphabet complicates things for no good reason. > > Please don't misunderstand all this as a rant against Lojban itself. I > think all students of all languages have a rant from time to time > against bits they see as being unnecessarily difficult. I really > admire the elegance of Lojban, and nothing would make me happier than > to be proven wrong on all these points. Please see my comments as > nothing more than the first impressions of a beginner. > > Thank you and all the best! > > Joel --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --20cf300fafe723b0fc04a0192ff0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can't see my post in the discussions. Is there a problem?

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Joel T. <joelofarabia@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
Hi all Lojbanists= ...

First of all... Wow! Well done to everybody who's worked so hard with this language over the years. I applaud the scientific objectives of
the Lojban project and the tirelessness of its community.

I discovered Lojban while doing researching for a hobby I pursue off
and on: a universal semantic writing system/syllabary. Imagine a
Blissymbols-Sona hybrid and you've got the general idea. After making some headway on grammar it turns out that I'd stumbled on a Lojban-
style predicate logic approach, though I hadn't thought of it in those<= br> terms.

Perhaps I should introduce myself properly: I have no formal training
as a linguist per se, but I am an English-Turkish bilingual with
training and several years' experience as an translator and
interpreter. I often find when reading up on linguistic theory that I
am just learning the proper terminology for things I have already
worked out "in the field." Although, don't get me wrong, I= 9;m sure I
still have much to learn.

I just wanted to share my (probably flawed) impressions about Lojban
after taking my first few lessons on Lojban for Beginners by Robin
Turner and Nick Nicholas (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/
lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html). Maybe I'm looking at the glass
half empty, and you can help me find a different perspective.

As I said, I earn my keep by working with English, which relies on
word order, and Turkish, which uses case endings. Switch two words in
an English sentence and the meaning can be the opposite of what it was
before. Completely randomize the words in a Turkish sentence and it
usually means the same thing. I had always thought the two systems
were mutually incompatible.

With Lojban, it feels like I'm being taught both systems at once:
Place structure (like English) and place tags (like Turkish). But
that's not the worst part. I have to be ready for a sentence
containing any possible combination of the two!

I know you will say that Lojban dictates word order, so the place tags
system is not akin to Turkish. But if I'm using place tags,
semantically speaking there's nothing stopping me from doing what I
want with word order. This is what happens in Turkish. Technically the
verb is supposed to come at the end of the sentence, and this is the
convention in written communication and publishing. But day-to-day,
people use "devrik c=FCmleler" (flipped sentences) all the time.<= br> Although the Turkish Language Institute might frown on such usages as
being "wrong", they're an indispensible part of the language.=
Sometimes the flavour of a "devrik c=FCmle" is completely differe= nt to
the "correct" word order.

If you're serious about letting usage dictate the direction the
language takes, you have to take this possibility into account. IMO.
It starts when people get into "bad habits", like using place tag= s to
amend sentences after they've been said. Then these usages start to
assume new roles, like adding emphasis. Before you know it the
language has whole new features you never planned for. I would venture
that this would almost certainly happen in any rigorous Sapir-Whorf
test.

In any case, surely running two systems side-by-side is asking for
dialectisation (is that a word?), where speakers in one area get used
to one system while speakers in another prefer the other?

Another grumble is that, if you'll grant me that place tags basically amount to a case system, you've got a language where the case system is irregular for practically every single verb (gismu?) with 3 or more
places. I understand the concerns about semantic inaccuracy. So invent
more cases. How many do you want, 5, 15, 50? I'd learn them all. I'= d
rather learn 50 regular place tags than 5 irregular ones multiplied by
however many hundred verbs you have. Maybe I'm missing something here,<= br> but it feels like the Lojban case tag system complicates things for no
good reason the same way that using abstract symbols instead of an
alphabet complicates things for no good reason.

Please don't misunderstand all this as a rant against Lojban itself. I<= br> think all students of all languages have a rant from time to time
against bits they see as being unnecessarily difficult. I really
admire the elegance of Lojban, and nothing would make me happier than
to be proven wrong on all these points. Please see my comments as
nothing more than the first impressions of a beginner.

Thank you and all the best!

Joel

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--20cf300fafe723b0fc04a0192ff0--