[lojban] Re: Final nails in the coffin

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

The "Final nails in the coffin" line is more appropriate for the final destruction of a position
someone is proposing.  Since I am not proposing anything, not even -- except perhaps reflexively
in countering a claim that a featural alphabet would be a good thing for Lojban -- that a featural
alphabet would be a bad thing for Lojban, the metaphor does not apply.  Of course, the fact that
all the "nails" were rubber makes it even less apt.

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

> Wow.  I'll give you this:  You really do have some oratory skill.
> That's *quite* a talent.  You did actually have be believing I was being
> ineffective at communicating, for a while there.  But it _was_ slipping,
> over time.
> 
> But as to your oratory skill:  With great power comes great responsibility.

Why thank you and the same back atcha. (I ignore any sarcasm involved.) 
> Ahem.
> 
> Roll cameras.
> 
> In response to "ideas such as creating a useful, culture-neutral
> communication system", clifford-j@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 
> >It is not clear that anyone really wants this nor that it is a reason
> >why someone learns Lojban
> >(and it is even less clear that Lojban is culturally neutral in any
> >relevant sense).
> 
> He also wrote:
> 
> >In addition to which, I didn't know you were interested in cultural
> neutrality.
> 
> Wow.  That alone is enough to show your inattention and/or
> dismissiveness of me.  But that's not even the kicker.  Wait for the kicker!

Sorry I missed it.  Where exactly did you say that you were looking for a language which did not
impose a metaphysics on its speakers or even a language that would be equally applicable to a US
geek and a Thai sweatshop worker? Admittedly, what "cultural neutrality" means is not at all
clear,but I didn't see anything that looked like the stuff that people usually mean when they say
it.

> In response to my suggestion
> >Google:
> > Lojban "culturally neutral"
> he quite thoroughly refuses to see any relavence in the results.  It's
> clear he has put some time into writing this reply.
> 
> Is there anything else?  Hm, I guess not.  Only three nails will have to
> do.  I'm satisfied with that.

As I have pointed out, all three are rubber so don't hold the case closed -- if there were a case
to hold.
 
> So here's the kicker:  when I suggest a value he personally holds,
> is not a value Lojban holds, he writes:
> 
> >See the discussion at the beginning of CLL
> 
> Ooh, such an official-sounding chastisement, coming from you.  "Pay
> respect to the authorities!", the implication being that you are (or
> speak for) an authority.  Am I over-dramatizing?  Sorry.  I'll stop now.
> 
> That was an *excellent* suggestion, thank you *so* *much* for that.  I
> will indeed attend to the authorities.
> 
> (I can't believe I didn't see it before.)
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Look at the CLL yourself!!!  On the very first page of text, only the
> second bullet point, front and center:
> 
> * Lojban is designed to be neutral between cultures.
> 
> Clearly printed where it can be read not twenty seconds after opening
> the front cover.  Have you ever seen that?  Did that ever register, in
> your head?  Repeated usage of the term 'culture-neutrality', it never
> rang a bell?  All that time you spent trying to tear me down, you never
> had a nagging feeling?  For a person so vocal about the merits of the
> status-quo, this is quite a glaring oversight, wouldn't you agree?

I did mention that the Google folk tended to repeat or buy into the LLG propaganda, of which that
first page of CLL is a major part (in Loglan/Lojban since at least 1960).  Notice that nowhere
there or elsewhere in CLL is "cultural neutrality" explained nor the claim that Lojban has it
developed.  It is exactly that bullet and nothing more.  That leaves us to try to make some sense
of the claim -- indeed of the term.  Historically, it comes out of the original purpose: to test
"the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis."  Since, so far as I can find, no one has ever come up with a
testable hypothesis that is anything like what Sapir and especailly Whorf talked about (roughly
grammar channels metaphysics), I am not surprised that that particular goal has not been prominent
over the last forty years or so (even JCB never actually said what hypothesis he was going to
test). Note interstingly, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is true, a culturally neutral language (in
the relevant sense, whatever that may be) is impossible; if it is false, then every language (or
almost every one)is neutral.  JCB's line on neutrality was that, since there were no obligatory
categories in Lojban, any grammatical type was as easily expressed as any other and so the
supposed forcing would nto take place.  However, Loglan/Lojban precisely forces the categories
against which Whorf in particular most often railed: count-noun - predicate pattern at trhe heart
of SAE languages.  And Lojban is in this respect the most SAE language ever -- even the word for
water is a count noun.  Now, there may be other notions of cultural neutrality and even some that
Lojban happens to meet, but no one ever sets them forth and backs up the claim successfully (and
there are several attempts that have failed prima facie when clearly presented), so calling the
"cultural neutrality" claim mere propaganda seems justified at the moment.
  
> The first reference to even a *property* of the Latin alphabet
> (uppercase letters) is two pages later, which is easily equivalent to an
> underline or some such modifier on VS or RPA (*any* alphabet, for that
> matter).  So that's not even tied to the Latin alphabet, if you have any
> imagination at all.  The first explicit reference to the Latin alphabet
> *itself* being specifically tied to Lojban is in the *next* *chapter*,
> *nine* *pages* after the bullet point. 

Explain to me what a bullet point about cultural neutrality has to do with what alphabet we use. 
I suppose it is something like this: a genuinely culturally neutral language would not use a
witing system that belongs to any particular culture.  But that is 12) an odd notion of cultural
neutrality and 2) fails to consider that the Latin alphabet, whatever its origin, now is pretty
much transcultural (they even use it in Iran for some offical purposes). 
 
> The explicit enumeration of the
> details of the alphabet is in chapter *three*.  All this indicates that
> the usage of the Latin alphabet in particular is definitely a secondary,
> less significant point, when compared to that of culture-neutrality,
> don't you agree?

Well, since I don;t think that cultural neutrality is a point at all, I suppose I have to hold
that  using the Latin alphabet is more significant.  But then I never held that the use of the
Latin alphabet was a big deal.  It came about just because it was the easiest way to do things (if
any thought went into it at all) and the one that put the fewest obstacles in the way of learners.
It was not a design features or a goal of Lojban.  But the reasons for its adoption (insofar as
there were reasons) continue to apply and argue against changing (to which we add inertia, of
course).

> Phew.  That *is* a load off.  I've learned my lesson, though, I will
> keep the CLL much closer at hand from now on.  Shoulda done that from
> the start.  But then, he might have been smart enough not to give me
> more of those particular nails.  So it all works out in the end.

Yes, CLL is more than occasionally wrong and often very unclear, but it is at present the best we
have, so starting with it is always a good plan.
 
> I was actually hoping for one of two outcomes:  Either, that I would
> turn your way of thinking, or (realising that I may not be able to),
> understand your insights and point of view and why they won't be turned.
>   It's pretty clear that the first is never going to happen, I would
> have been happy even with the second outcome, but it becomes
> increasingly clear you have no insight to offer me.  Too bad.  I can
> learn *more* from opposing viewpoints.

As i have said, I don't have an opposing point of view (that featural alphabets area bad idea); my
only interest is to either get you to give a GOOD argument for you proposal or drop it.  I have
little hope for either happening based on past performance.
> 
> A major slip-up on your part, *oops*.  IMO, this, more than anything
> else (and there is plenty else), invalidates your right to speak for the
> Lojban community.  (The very first page!)  You have no power over me
> now.  I have little regard for your opinion any more.  Jorge is my new
> best friend here. :)

A good choice.  He is -- with a couple of major exceptions -- the best Lojbanist around, in both
practice and theory.
I don't, of course, see any major slip-ups (nor any reason to put any more faith in the first page
than in any other dust jacket praise (these bullets used actually to be on the dust jacket).

> *sigh*  Persistence paid off.  A win for rationality.  Yay me.

Again, a win only if rationality is applied t trut premises.
 
> I guess I've passed the hazing ritual.  Thanks... but not really...
> Come on guys, couldn't you have told me?  That's not funnyyyy...  Ah
> well.  It was a learning experience.  I guess I'm happy about that.  And
> I lasted the distance, without losing my temper *too* much.  I'm a
> little proud of that, but I'll try to keep my temper in check even
> better next time.  Having been through this ordeal, I think I *can* do
> that better now.  So.  Yes.  I'll call it a positive experience.

Paaranoia openly expressed is not a becoming conversational gambit.  There is no ritual nor any
cabal (even though my name is Clifford) to which you had to wind admission.  I am glad to hear you
are going to continue to be an active participant.  I look foreward to some good ideas from you
soon.
  
> Jeez... how much does it pay, being a hazer?  That's an icky, icky job.
>   Tough, too, when you come across someone like me, eh? :)  Oh well,
> it's your choice.
> 
> Thanks for playing, it's been... something... go home now.

Sore loserdom is very unseemly -- and you haven't even lost yet.


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.