Re: [lojban] Lojban, restrictions, and thought

cntrational

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

This begs the question (in the correct sense as well) "Does language affect thought?" This is more or less the original SWH and is yet to be established. Hence, this is not a reasonable question to ask. The answer give is contrarian enough, but very Orwellian (the MediaWiki point is equally unfounded, but slightly more plausible).

<< 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.>>

But this is a cultural, not a linguistic, fact. From comparative data we know that KT had eqocentric directions but speakers stopped using them (though apparently they can pull them up in totally disorienting situations). This is just the language following the cullture or, at worst coevolving with it in a certain direction. Nothing here about language affecting thought (except in the simplistic sense that on certain kinds of test people do marginally better at tasks that are set up in the language).

<<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_!>>

So? If less freedom affects thought, what does this say about more freedom. Certainly not that it doesn't affect thought; not even that it affects thought in an opposite way. It may be that they both have the same sort of effect (including none at all). This does not help the case here at all.

<<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.>>

What do these supposed effects mean? Does someone who uses only "consume" ever pour his steak from a glass? chew on his orange juice? Does someone who has two terms fail to swallow when drinking (or when eating)? Ishe conscious of doing something different when he stops ladling his soup and picks it up and slurps? What does it mean to say that a person thinks of two activities as the same or different (other than the words he uses)? And what does this all have to do with restrictions or their lack? Thick baloney and thin baloney are both baloney.

<<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!>>

Well, we haven't seen this yet (nor any sign that it is so or what it even means). So both the exhortation and the display are not likely to be very convincing,

<<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.

This is an interesting presumed fact about Lojban culture, but has next to nothing to do with Lojban as a language. There is nothing in the language to prevent metaphors (as {pe'a} clearly shows, even if all the metaphors did not). There is a cultural pattern (which came very late in the program: JCB loved metaphors, delighted in creating them and praised those others who used them, while dismissing literalists) to insist that tanru (JCB even called them metaphors -- another piece of Logjamic neologism) must be literally interpretable. I suspect this comes from the later generations of Lojbanists, who tend to be computerists rather than humanists or linguists (read punsters and metaphorists) and carry over habits from the children of C (not even from math, where metaphors are bread and butter). But, for all this, there is nothing in Lojban against metaphors. It's just that a metaphor offered is likely to get a number of hostile comments, "it doesn't say what it means" -- but not "that is ungrammatical/not Lojban". But, all that aside, just what is the absence (or presence, for that matter) of metaphors supposed to say about freedom of thought (are there, say, things that can be said using metaphors that can't be said in plain text? Proving that would be interesting -- and probably self-defeating, for obvious reasons).

<<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.>>

No examples yet of grammar restrictions. In fact, no examplles of language restrictions at all (in Lojban or otherwise).

It is nice to see some attempt at philosophical discussions here. But. alas, this only comes up to the level of too many philosophical discussions.

SWH is the most muddled topic in Linguistics and so a hard one to work with. This does not get into it at all, let alone shed any light (or useful darkness).