Re: [lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality

[Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com>]

I have been reading Mr. O'Byrne's postings, recommendations, etc., and I have
decided to comment upon them.

As a complete beginner,  have no fluency inLojban whatsoever. My reasons for
learning Lojban are two-fold: I have interest in being able to speak in more
than merely my native language, and the concept of a logical language appeals
to my mathematically inclined mind.

As far as an official alphabet is concerned, whether for Lojban as a whole or
merely for accurately transcribing foreign words/sounds, I do not think it is a
wise idea. Much better that ways be determined for transcribing Lojban in the
myriad already used character sets, as has been and is being done already. I
have two reasons for this: First, it is much easier to learn a language when
you do not also need to, at the same time, learn an entirely new method of
reading. I say this from experience, as I am currently taking nihongo classes,
and let me tell you, the hardest part is not learning the konbonwa means good
evening, it is learning the 50-odd characters of the hiragana and katakana. Not
to mention the kanji. Second, Since Lojban words are spelled exactly as they
are pronounced, without exception, it is a relatively easy manner to
tranliterate a Lojban word from one character set to another, so long as the
character sets involved contain the sounds appropriate.

While it is a noble task to make Lojban more- complete, I suppose- by giving
said an official alphabet, it would most likely hurt the development of Lojban
in both short and long term, due to the difficulty in learning both a new
language and character set all at once. I have looked at VS, Lhoerr, and so
forth since reading these threads, and I have to say I am personally not
willing to learn them. The Latin alphabet is what I know, it works fine for the
language I don't want to expend the effort to learn a new character set when
the one I *already know* is perfectly acceptable for the needs of the language
already. I feel the same way about attempts that have already been made, such
as the Tengwar character set. While I think that Lojban looks more asthetic in
the Tengwar character set, I have no wish to learn it.

I think that your efforts should be applauded, as they indicate that you wish
to see the Lojban language flourish, but I feel that they are futile, due to
their being, ultimately, unneccesary. For the specific instanceof foreign words
being used in a Lojban passage, in my case I would merely look up the word in
the appropriate dictionary to determine both the correct pronunciation and
meaning of the word, the latter being more important to me, just as I would do
were I to encounter a foreign word encountered in an English text.

For those that don't know, nihongo is Japanese for "Japanese Language".

--- Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:

> John E Clifford wrote:
> > Faulty analogy.
> 
> How easily you use that phrase.
> 
> Apt analogy.  Lack of vision.
> 
> >  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.
> 
> zzzzzz... *blink* *blink*  Sorry, almost drifted off there, surrounded
> as I was by soft, fluffy words.  I may have missed something, but I 
> *did* try and follow, and it sounded awfully like "well this is how it's 
> always been done before", which as I said, is a disappointing argument. 
>   I guess there also was an element of individualism, which I admire 
> somewhat, perverted to antisocialism, which is also disappointing.  I 
> was under the impression there *was* a Lojban *community*, here.  But 
> back to words of substance:
> 
> As I have said, I was hoping for a well-thought-out solution.  If you 
> refuse to (or are unable to) acknowledge any value to the proposal, 
> which I have spent much time pointing out, then you're not the target 
> audience for this discussion; you demonstrate yourself unqualified to 
> be.  This *does* put you in the situation where, if you want to obstruct 
> the idea, you must provide some evidence of *negative* value to it.
> 
> I think perhaps the circle of statements in the middle of my post may be 
> one of the strongest arguing points for this train of thought I've found 
> so far:
> 
> >>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.)"
> 
> Keeping in mind that this *is* a different issue than is addressed in 
> either "Alphabet proposal one" or "Lojban Alphabet Starter B" (a related 
> issue, but a different one), what do you see as the fatal flaw in the 
> above circle (if indeed you do see one)?
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> 


-Jon Jones

"I have a brain, I've just lost my mind." -Ian McLeod

"As a percentage of total universal knowledge, what I know is statistically insignificant." - me

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS>$ d+(++) s++:-- a- C++ UL P L++>+++++ !E W+(++) N+ o? K- !w---- O- M-(+)@ V? PS+++ PE- Y+ PGP- t+ !5-- X(+) R+ !tv-- b+++ DI+ D+ G e* h+* r+(++) y+(++)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com