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

[lojban] Re: ZOI and culture neutrality

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.