[lojban] Re: Chess-and-Tetris Hypothesis

[Gregory Dyke <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

> 0. The worst way of translation to ko'a from English is literal translation,
> condemned as {malglico}:
> http://arj.nvg.org/lojban/malglico.html (may be outdated)

I wouldn't say it's the worst, but yeah - it usually doesn't work out too well

> The most sad about ko'a, which concerns everybody unless we have a native
> ko'a speaker, is that by years of learning and practicing ko'a and becoming
> more or less familiar with many typical ko'a words/phrases, your brain gets
> accustomed to these templates and begins refusing to think. And thinking is
> *always required* to speak ko'a, alas, even if you speak ko'a for years. If

I'm confused as to why you claim this. Unless this is just an
executive summary of your claims, you are begging the question

> you are NOT thinking while speaking ko'a, being at the same time a native
> speaker of other language, you are rolling down to {malglico}. Or
> {maldotco}. Or {malrusko}. That is NOT ko'a, actually, that is a near-ko'a
> substance which doesn't deserve any interest and may be called {malylojbo}
> as well. If speaking {malylojbo}, why don't simply speak Esperanto then?

To show that lojban is different, you are assuming that lojban is
different. If I am able to not think while speaking German (not mother
tongue), does that mean I've reverted to malglico ja malfraso dotco?

> Fact: after 1 day of playing Tetris you won't have to think while playing it
> anymore.

for me, this is not true.

> Fact: even if you play chess everyday for all your life, you will always
> have to think while playing it.

nope... I can play without thinking - I won't win of course, unless my
opponent is equally weak, but then again, I won't if I play tetris
without thinking.

But my disagreeing with these claims is irrelevant to the comparisons
you are making.

> 2. Natural-type languages and ko'a. Natural-type languages are, firstly,
> natural languages, and secondly, constructed languages with grammars similar
> to those of natural languages. Esperanto is, e.g., a natural-type language.
> In a natural-type language words do not have exact/explicit/formal relation
> with other words in the sentence. Ko'a is, obviously, a constructed but not
> natural-type language.

nope... not obvious at all. The natural form of lojban will almost
certainly not be the full language. But the rules are so lax that
there is little reason it should not be a subset rather than a
superset of the formal language.

> Hypothesis 1: Expression of implicit relation between words in a sentence,
> relying on a context, the feature of natural-language texts, doesn't require
> thinking.

> Hypothesis 2: Explicit, hierarchical, formula-like expression of relations
> between words in sentences requires thinking and doesn't get accustomed to.
>

You seem confusing pragmatics, semantics and syntax. Lojban has the
same pragmatics as a natlang. I can say 'barda gerku bajra' and the
meaning can be groked. as for semantics, many natlangs have complex
semantic relationships that have to be learned and internalised. In
particular, the place structures for the different bridi are no more
or less complex than the cases and prepositions required in many other
languages, such as (to pick two that I'm familiar with) German and
Breton. Each verb has to be learnt with its prepositions.  As for
syntax, the same thing applies. Breton has initial consonant mutations
where you have to learn mutation patterns, which words cause mutation
and which mutations they cause. And yet children pick this up so
easily that feminine soft mutation is transposed into other languages
(compare mamm -> ar vamm, mère -> la *vère (la mère in correct
french), which is a common child's mistake.)

> HYPOTHESIS 3 (Chess-and-Tetris hypothesis): THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
> NATURAL-TYPE LANGUAGES AND NON-NATURAL-TYPE LANGUAGES LIKE DIFFERENCE
> BETWEEN TETRIS AND CHESS. HUMAN BRAIN WILL NEVER GET ACCUSTOMED TO
> NON-NATURAL-TYPE LANGUAGES TO THE GRADE WHEN IT WON'T THINK WHILE SPEAKING
> THEM.

I don't think we can speak the whole of lojban without thinking, but
we will learn a subset and speak that very easily. Any confusing
"formal grammar" type things will be learned in the same way that
exceptions are learnt in natlangs. What is likely is that we don't
make optimal use of elidable terminators, but use them often, just in
case.
>
> 3. Sapir-Whorf.
>
> Hypothesis 4: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis cannot be applied to all languages. It
> can be applied to natural-type languages, or the languages not requiring
> thinking while speaking, only.

change this into 4: sapir whorf cannot be applied to languages that
require thinking while speaking.

We can then leave your other two to determine whether this is a
definition of natural-type languages and whether lojban is a) a
natural-type language and b) a language that requires thinking while
speaking.

> SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:
>
> 1. You must ALWAYS think while speaking Lojban (which is not required for
> natural languages), otherwise you speak not "a real Lojban" but
> {malglico/maldotco/malfraso/...}.

I disagree. The danger, however, for our first "generation" of lojbo
se bangu is that the subset does become some form of malropno or
malnalrutni or something. Correct language so that you're not speaking
malglico dotco is acquired by immersion and the presence of some form
of feedback. We must strive to make sure our feedback loop doesn't
send us down a wrong path.

>
> 2. You will never feel any form of "magical effects of Sapir-Whorf
> hypothesis" while speaking Lojban since it's not applicable to Lojban.

Many do not "believe" that Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true.
Particularly, is it possible to feel Sapir-Whorf through any learnt
foreign language?

For instance, Breton uses "glas" as the colour adjective to describe
any colour that the sea can take. It usually means blue, but extends
to all naturally occuring greens and many greys. I don't know whether
I'm ever going to be able to use that adjective without thinking.
(Unless I get the opportunity to immerse myself in Breton some time)

> 3 (reformulating 1). You will ALWAYS have to think while speaking Lojban,
> like playing chess.
>
> 4. Many people don't like chess because chess require thinking. For the same
> reason, many people will dislike Lojban.

Interesting. I think most people who dislike lojban see no use for it.
This is why many breton people are not learning their language. Others
who might be attracted to lojban are more interested in conlangs that
actually have more than 10 people who can communicate in it (ok, I'm
exagerating - I haven't been on irc lately, so I don't know how it's
coming on). Lastly, many people who come to lojban are the type who
like to dabble in many languages.

>
> 5. Thinking tires brain. Constant thinking depletes brain resources. Lojban
> requires thinking.

amend this to 5. Thinking tires the brain. Constant thinking is exhausting

mi'e greg. mu'o


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.