Re: [lojban] Lettorals

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

My late take:


Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
> No natural language features even
> remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean
> that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in which such
> handling of pronouns comes naturally to it.
> [...]
> My point
> was that lojban's way of dealing with pronouns does not in any similar
> form occur in any natural language, thus it is not a linguistic
> mechanism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is confusing (not
> messy, I agree - that was a hyperbole).

Such handling includes the concatenation of BY, like {cy ly ly} for
{lo [c]malu [l]anme [l]adru}; abbreviatory representations like that
can actually be found in natural languages, such as "CLL" for
"[C]omplete [L]ojban [L]anguage" and "全日空" ("ANA") for "[全][日]本[空]輸"
("[A]ll [N]ippon [A]irways").


>> "bob hit billy.  He is 8".
>
> In that case the intonation of the voice and accentuation will give
> clues as to what "he" refers to - Bob or Billy. There's no such tool
> in lojban.

There could be. It's just that it isn't part of the prescribed grammar
(and nor is the English intonation, insofar as I'm aware), because it
isn't necessary in Lojban for the purpose of anaphora.


> I was not trying to say that lojban has problems
> nor that it is flawed, I am simply trying to be realistic in noticing
> that not every single aspect and feature of lojban is better and more
> practical *in every single way* than its English counterpart.

But surely
1) {jy}, {abu}, etc. are more informative than "it", and
2) {ra}, {zo'e}, etc. are as vague as "it".
In the matter of anaphora, Lojban is as much practical as English
about intentional vagueness, and more functional than English about
intentional informativeness.


> As opposed to that,
> inductive reasoning (which I demonstrated in understanding the example
> with Mabel) *does* come naturally to the hardware, which is why no
> natural language features specific mechanisms for minimising the
> requirement of inductive reasoning in understanding of the language.

Or it could be just that the ability to mind a certain kind of
linguistic clarity hasn't been as much important a trait for earlier
humans to improve in. Ambiguous / vague pronouns with little
inferential hint might have been even common when
1) the use of language was more often oral and
2) pronominal unclarities could well be resolved between the
interlocuters on the spot during the oral conversation (not laying out
'inductive' clues throughout the utterance).


* * *


More about evolution:

Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, having both arms and
> wings is clearly better than having arms XOR wings,

But not all environments favor 'arms AND wings', any more than 'mouth
AND eyes'. It would be possible for a species with arms and wings to
gradually lose the latter in their evolutionary path according to the
environmental conditions, just like those blind cave fish that are
decendents of species with fully functional eyes.


Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You've just proven my point with the sarcasm there. We do fly in jets
>> when it is better than walking, don't we? Case in point that
>> evolutionary pressure does its job.
>
> We don't fly because we evolved the ability. We fly because of technological
> innovation. Evolutionary pressure has never developed the ability to fly in
> huma

I recall Richard Dawkins explaining in one of his documentaries the
development of efficient wind turbines as an instance of the mechanism
of evolution at play in our post-biological sphere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex4O5z_ig2g


> Tool manipulation is a product of comprehension, which is determined by
> various factors of the brain. The ability does not imply the use. Monkeys
> are able to type, but they lack that necessary to understand how to write.

There wouldn't have been any how-to-write for humans if it weren't for
the fact that humans acquired the ability to write in certain ways.
And the method is specific to our biological features; our
how-to-write (including the use of 'external' devices such as
keyboards and mice) is determined by our physical specificities and
may therefore be different from the how-to-write for, say, elephants,
whose physical dimensions and functionalities are different from
humans'. We can't write things in ways other than what our innate
capability allows for. The ability does imply (but not necessitate)
the use.


mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.