Subject: [lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

From: Robin Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 21:21:18 +0300

And Rosta wrote:
> 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 think the tension would be interesting to observe in a group committed 
to the baseline grammar. It might also be the case that the reverse 
occurs, with people preferring ways of putting things in Lojban that are 
as far removed from their natlang grammar as possible. I would also be 
interested in the possibility of non-natlang-influenced drift for 
functional reasons.

> 
> 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.)
> 
You have a point there, but I think it is an important shibboleth to 
maintain, at least for a while. I don't think it is possible for a 
language to be free of unmarked metaphor (though the richness and 
explicit nature of Lojban grammar at least tends to make such things as 
time less metaphorical). However, I think it's interesting to see how 
far you can go, and thee is also the practical communicative 
consideration that we should at least try and avoid culture-specific 
metaphor (and unless you're a prodigious polyglot, who can say what is 
not culture-specific?).

With the "gerku" example, I don't know of any cultures where comparing 
someone to a dog would be a compliment, but they may exist (it wouldn't 
be hard to imagine a culture which would interpret "le do mamta cu 
gerku" as an implication that your mother was very faithful).

robin.tr

-- 
"We do not imprison ourselves with laws, or impoverish ourselves with 
money" - Iain Banks

Robin Turner
IDMYO
Bilkent Universitesi
Ankara 06533
Turkey

www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin