[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality

Jorge Llambías wrote:

On 7/8/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:

...


Now don't get me started on MEX! :)

As pc points out, knowing all of Lojban does include (unfortunately I add)
knowing how to construct grammatical mathematical expressions, but
not necessarily understanding them. In my opinion, having a separate
subgrammar for those mathematical expressions is a blemish of Lojban,
not a feature in its favour. I would never have included it as part of the
language.


.ue
Okay, that you have these feelings towards MEX in Lojban tells me you have deeper reasons for holding the position you do, reasons that are relavent to phonetics. I would enjoy exploring these reasons, so that I may make a more fully-informed decision myself. 


> 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".


I don't see Lojban being different from other languages in this respect.
What could prevent anyone, when using English, or Spanish, or Chinese,
or whatever language, from introducing foreign phrases in their speech
or written text?
Such languages have no central authority to recommend one particular phonetic alphabet to officially go with them. It's not a silver bullet, but it is an improvement for those who wish to use it.
To more directly answer your question: Nothing is in place to prevent what you describe, but there are no guidelines. IMHO, guidelines help; the rules already in place in Lojban are good, but can be improved, for specialist purposes. Hm. But you have already expressed the extensions for mathematical specialists is a blemish, so the extension for linguistic specialists would be too. I guess I have no counterargument to that (yet!). 


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.


Correct.


Good, glad we understand each other.  Cooperative communication good.


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.


No, I'd have to see first what the contenders were. But I really don't see
how that could ever come to a vote for the LLG, since most members of
the LLG (myself included) are not experts in phonetics.
It would be good to get input from as large a group as is sensible, but I agree the size of the group may be somewhat smaller than is usual for such issues. Is there a minimum size for a quorum? 


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. :)


Designing a featural phonemic alphabet for Lojban would be a cool thing
to do. Selecting the features to include is the easy part, making the
design look good is the hard part. I don't imagine the LLG as taking the task 
upon itself though. When and if such an alphabet is presented, I would
see the LLG making some sort of mention of it as an alterantive, though
not declaring it *the* official alphabet of Lojban.
The phonemic alphabet is the topic of the other thread; though, I'm glad you see its relavence to this one. On that thread, a mention of one alternative in particular is all I'd ask for a first step. For that matter, a mention of one alternative in particular is all I'd ask for a first step on this issue, too. 


But a phonetic alphabet
is a tool for linguists, not something that the LLG should be concerned with.
My point that calculus is a tool for mathematicians would apply here, except you've indicated you already consider it moot. So... I guess I cannot contest this point on your ground.
Impasse, but one I feel we can still communicate through. I'd be happy to try and explain in more detail my viewpoint, if you're interested. For the reverse, I'd be interested to hear more detail of your viewpoint, if you're willing to share. (To start with: You indicate there has been discussion on MEX before; perhaps you could give me a rough pointer into the archive so that I may get some background without needlessly filling up more forum space.) 

--
Good night, and have a rational tomorrow!

mi'e .xius.