From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Oct 08 16:24:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 8 Oct 2002 23:24:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 15899 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 23:24:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2002 23:24:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 23:24:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17z3mF-0002rw-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:28:35 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17z3lY-0002qI-00; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:27:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-4.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.104]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17z3lR-0002pN-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:27:45 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-70.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.70]) by mailbox-4.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C941D11A for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:23:18 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:24:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3DA345AE.5060103@bilkent.edu.tr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 2000 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Robin.tr: > > If I remember rightly, the key purpose in question was to have a > > language that was 'whorfianly neutral', so that usage could then be > > examined to see if there were any whorfian interferences from the L1. > > (Correct me if I'm wrong -- you're clearer on this than me.) But > > the Naturalist route wants to complete the creation process through > > usage, in which case there is inevitably going to be massive L1 > > interference, but not of an interesting sort, because it won't > > be counterposed to any defined whorfianly neutral grammar. > > ..iesai From a linguistic point of view, it is exactly this potential > tension between grammar and usage which would be interesting. to > illustrate the point in a rather absurd way, I once ran a > cyberpunk-style role-playing game in which Lojban was a lingua franca > for geeks. The two Lojbanisms that really caught on amongst the players > were "mabla" (correct usage) and "le do mamta cu gerku" (incorrect, in > canonical Lojban). If the grammar (in the linguistics sense, not the computing sense!) comes into being through usage, which is what the Naturalists wish to happen, then I don't see how there'd be a tension between grammar and usage. You might say there'd be a tension between the baselined component and the eventual grammar that evolves out of usage, but one's prediction is that the eventual grammar would be a fairly predictable melange of the baseline and L1 influences. If the prediction were borne out, then one would not feel terribly excited, since the obvious is seldom exciting. But you see things differently, so maybe you can explain a bit more. I don't really get the point about "le do mamta cu gerku". Yes, it's unmarked figurative usage, but the deprecation of unmarked figurative usage is more a cultural shibboleth than a real part of Lojban. (it's certainly not part of Lojban grammar, and I don't think it's really much of an active element in Lojban culture either.) --And.