[lojban] Lojban, restrictions, and thought

I read the welcome page for the Lojban MediaWiki, which essentially claims that natural languages "discourage other ways of thinking" and that Lojban frees them from these restrictions, enabling freer _expression_ and thought. The purpose of this post is to prove that this is wrong and express my alternative theory instead.

Before we begin, I should note that while I'm not very good at Lojban or logic, that I'm decently well-read on linguistics (about to begin an MA in it later this month, in fact), enough to say that I know more about linguistics than the typical Lojbanist. My theories here are based on what I've read and though I am not an expert in linguistic cognition, I feel that my theories are not anything out of the ordinary.

The central question to consider is "what mechanism do languages affect thought by?". My view is that languages effect this by restricting _expression_.

To take an extreme example, consider the famous Kuuk Thaayorre language -- this language lacks egocentric directions like "behind" and "in front of" -- instead, they use cardinal directions, saying in effect "Watch out, there's an ant to the north of your foot." for "Watch out, there's an ant near your foot.". The Thaayorre people thus have a very powerful sense of direction, being aware of which directions are where at almost all times. Kuuk Thaayorre in essence restricts _expression_ by denying you the ability to use egocentric directions, forcing you to use cardinal directions.

Notice that this is essentially the opposite view to that expressed by the LMW. The LMW claims that allowing more options, like, say, allowing both cardinal and egocentric directions would expand thought. But here we see the opposite: thought is affected by allowing less freedom of _expression_!

If you consider it, such restrictions permeate language. Consider, for example, the restriction (stretching the term a bit) that English divides consumption of food/drinks into "eat" and "drink" -- if you asked a regular English speaker, they would probably think of these two activities as being distinct.

But what if you spoke a language where common usage dictates "eat" and "drink" are both expressed as one word, say, "consume". "Eat" and "drink" would be specialized terms, and "consume" the generic term. A speaker of such a language would likely think of eat and drink as being two realizations of a single activity.

There is of course a third option, where "consume", "eat", and "drink" are all equally common. I'm not sure what speakers of such a language would think about boundaries between eating and drinking are.

Once again, we see that biases and alterations of thought are caused by restricting people to a certain option, leaving the other option as secondary or non-existent. My conclusion is (and here we get to the main point) that if Lojban wants to truly affect and expand thought, it must restrict _expression_! And I argue that it has already done so!

Consider Lojban's lack of non-explicit metaphor (really a hiding away of metaphor than a true lack, but that's a different topic) -- this is often claimed by Lojbanists to result in clearer _expression_ and such, but this is because Lojban effectively restricts free _expression_ of metaphors in favor of being literalistic. Sure, there's {pe'a}, but it's rarely used in normal conversation -- in the same way "consume" is not commonly used in English in the same way "eat" and "drink" are. {pe'a} is secondary, leaving a Lojbanist effectively avoiding metaphors.

Metaphors are just one example out of the many restrictions Lojban places, both explicitly in grammar and implicitly by the speech-community. Lojban thus already has the potential to explore alternative routes of thought, but this is because it places restrictions on what you can say, not because it's a permissive language, but because it's a restrictive language. Hopefully I've convinced you of this, but regardless of what you think, I would like to hear your responses and thoughts.