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

RE: [lojban] Military language



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