[lojban] Re: Example of Cultural Neutrality

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 7/11/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maxim Katcharov wrote:
> > All of this is already possible in Lojban. As I've said before, if the
> > intent is to let the reader speak it aloud, then the writer may very
> > well write it in IPA, or transliterate it into Lojban.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > If the intent
> > is to let the reader repeat it in writing, the writer will use the
> > native alphabet. If the intent is to allow both, then the writer can
> > write the native alphabet on top, with IPA directly below each word.
>
> Interesting idea; I hadn't thought of that.
>
> > To introduce a new alphabet, you need to show that the Latin alphabet
> > is deficient.
>
> To introduce a new alphabet to *replace* the Latin alphabet, I would
> need to show that the Latin alphabet is deficient.  I do not intend
> replacement.

To rephrase, you need to show that adding this alphabet has greater
benefits than the (in my opinion severe) detriments of multiple
writing systems for a single language.

> > One deficiency could be that it doesn't allow you to
> > express many non-Lojban phonemes. If this is your argument, then you
> > need to show that it is a good idea to make the Lojbanist have to know
> > how to read and say the many, many phonemes that exist in order to
> > know Lojban.
>
> It is one of the arguments.  However, I do not wish to *make* anyone
> have to know anything.  The use of ZOI is for introducing non-Lojban
> into Lojban, so we're already talking about a subset of Lojbanists:
> those who want to use foreign words.  For the purposes of global
> communication, one consistent symbol set, which can represent all spoken
> languages on Earth, is preferable to many symbol sets, some of which map
> the same symbol to different phonemes.

This is IPA. I think that many would agree, despite its somewhat weird
symbols, that it is the global standard, and that the global standard
would be the thing to use. And that introducing a competing global
standard without very good reason probably isn't a good idea.

> Still; I do not propose banning
> native alphabets.  This is to be a guideline to Lojbanists who wish to
> use the ZOI structure in a consistent way across many languages, not an
> ironclad rule.  Didn't I say that already??

I didn't think that you wanted to ban native dialects, only to
introduce an extended phonetic alphabet (which would be better done by
the IPA), or an alternate basic alphabet (one, or four! (the sound of
a palm smacking a forehead) already-widely-used alphabets is quite
enough).

> > The Latin alphabet is not deficient, and the Lojbanist
> > should not have to know more phonemes than Lojban currently has. In
> > addition, the problems that you point out are already solved as I've
> > described in the above paragraph. I don't think that you have a case.
>
> Again, it's not about 'have to know'.  It's about facilitating
> consistent usage, for those who think (globally) consistent usage is a
> good idea.  Every individual could consistently use an alphabet they
> think up out of their own heads.  That's perfectly valid Lojban.  It

I, for one, would be extremely annoyed if everyone suddenly started
talking in their own unique simple-replacement-cypher.

> hinders communication, though.  I could consistently use English text
> encrypted with a strong key inside every one of my ZOIs.  That would be
> valid too.  Why don't I?  Because I want (as much as possible) more

Good that we agree.

> universal understanding, and easier use, of what I write.  If *one*
> skill set will allow me to at least be an effective medium for *all*
> spoken languages, I think that's a good deal!  But I'm not shoving it
> down your throat!
>
> The solution you propose above (native text with IPA beneath) is a
> pretty good one.  The original text will not survive in its entirety
> through the written-to-spoken-to-written cycle performed by phoneticians
> who don't know the language, but enough will survive that a phonetician
> who *does* know the language will be able to reconstruct it again.  I
> would place it alongside (perhaps even above, as a refinement of) my
> proposal.

Well, if the proposal is to add something like "it is recommended that
when writing, if the intent is blah, then .... and the best thing to
do is of course to write the native alphabet on top with IPA beneath",
then, well... sure. My belief was that this was how it is/would be
handled regardless. Even the phonetician who intends to communicate
the symbols in writing would tend to "speak the written version of the
language" (if you will), and write the symbols. The person who wants
to communicate to both audiences (in both the orthographic and
phonetic versions of the language) would write one version above and
the other beneath, or perhaps one on the left and one on the right, as
I assume is usually done in English.

> --
> 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.


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.