[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality
Jorge Llambías wrote:
On 7/8/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:
Point of opinion: Lojban writers should always have the freedom to
insert non-Lojban in such a way as that it is always pronouncable to
someone who knows all of Lojban, but none of any other language.
I agree. But "knowing all of Lojban" involves knowing how to pronounce
the 25 Lojban phonemes, it could never involve a requirement of being
an expert in phonetics.
Knowing *all* of Lojban (particularly CLL chapter 18) *does* involve the
requirement of being somewhat an expert in mathematics: factorials,
logarithms, vectors and matrices, even calculus! What I propose is no
different, in character: Knowing *sufficient* Lojban for everyday
interactions of 99% of Lojbanists involves only knowing addition and
subtraction, and knowing sufficient Lojban for everyday interactions of
99% of Lojbanists involves only knowing how to pronounce the 25 Lojban
phonemes. Structure is in place for going much further along one of
those directions, though, for those who wish to do so; why *not* make
structure for the other?
Knowing how to read a phonetic alphabet
requires a very specialized sort of knowledge, which most speakers of
any language do not have.
Knowing how to use calculus also requires a very specialized sort of
knowledge, but I don't see chapter 18 (in whole or in part) as being a
detriment to the language. I'll go further: I see *all* of chapter 18
as being of benefit to the language, *no* part of it is .aucu'i (at
least in the larger sense, thinking of more than just some, or even
most, individuals' opinions and limitations), which I seem to be sensing
a lot as a justification for the .aunai attitude (which it isn't).
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".
You can make an effort to maintain feature distinctions that
are foreign to the host language if you feel like it, but that can never
be a
part of being fluent in the language. I could never become fluent in Lojban
if I had to be able to produce all the phonetic distinctions that exist in
English, for example, since some vowel distinctions that English makes
are beyond my capabilities. 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. ZOI gives them the possibility of inserting non-Lojbanic
distinctions
if they please, but no guarantee that they will be understood by all fluent
Lojban speakers.
I do not doubt or challenge your fluency in Lojban. Respectfully, I
suggest that there are people who are more fluent than you in foreign
languages, and do not have a standardised way to bring their expertise
to bear in Lojban as much as they might have. These people may be more
skilled in some respects than you, indeed more skilled than me, I'll
readily admit, but I do not intend for them to be held back by either of
our limitations.
Ah-hah. Re-reading, I see now that perhaps you're trying to taking a
different approach to the point than I have addressed so far. I'll
thoroughly analyse one of your sentences (the one I think is the core
one). I'll try to explain the view I have, from the direction I think
you're pointing.
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.)"
(For any Lojban phoneticians, the most convenient alphabet to use today
is probably the IPA alphabet, but there is nothing to prevent some future
Association of Lojban Phoneticians to design and use some other alphabet
that they find more suitable. But that alphabet could never become a part
of what you need to know to be an ordinary fluent speaker of Lojban.)
Wholeheartedly agreed, under those qualifiers: 'need to know', 'ordinary
fluent speaker of Lojban'. Again, it goes to chapter 18 having value
even if most people will skip 50% of it.
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.
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.
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. :)
--
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.