From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Sun Jan 12 22:32:15 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 13 Jan 2003 06:32:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 16742 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2003 06:32:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Jan 2003 06:32:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.93) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2003 06:32:14 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.186] by n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jan 2003 06:32:14 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 06:32:10 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Geoff Sampson's review of CLL Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 7502 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Nick Nicholas " X-Originating-IP: 128.250.86.174 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis J. Linguistics 35 (1995), 447-448. Printed in the United Kingdom =A9 1999 Cambridge University Press SHORTER NOTICE John Woldemar Cowan, The complete Lojban language. Fairfax, VA: The=20 Logical Language Group, Inc., 1997. Pp. x+608. Reviewed by GEOFFREY SAMPSON, University of Sussex A leading idea, among linguists who believe in a `language instinct', is th= =3D=0D at=20 there could be hypothetical languages which would provide for all human=20 communicative needs, but would nevertheless be unlearnable and unusable=20 because they failed to conform to the genetic blueprint. A community of=20 people are now engaged in a project which might be seen as testing that=20 idea. Lojban is an artificial language which has been designed in the light= =3D=0D of=20 modern linguistics, philosophical logic, and computer science to be a super= =3D=0D ior=20 alternative to naturally-evolved languages, suitable for talking or writing= =3D=0D about=20 everything people want to discuss, rational, and even euphonious. It differ= =3D=0D s=20 from natural languages in many respects, at least some of which relate to=20 matters claimed to be part of the biological `language instinct'. Lojban ha= =3D=0D s a=20 following of enthusiasts (see http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/) who are = =3D=0D trying to=20 bring it into use as a living language. The genesis of Lojban lay in an idea published in 1960 by James Cooke=20 Brown. Although artificial, Lojban is very different from the late nineteen= =3D=0D th=20 century international languages, such as Volap=FCk and Esperanto, which are= =20 essentially European languages simplified and regularized. Lojban has more = =3D=0D in common with seventeenth century `philosophical languages' such as John=20 Wilkins's `Real Character'. But seventeenth century artificial languages=20 focused on vocabulary, seeking to classify all possible concepts rationally= =3D=0D .=20 The developers of Lojban appreciate that human thought is too dynamic to=20 allow vocabulary to be constrained by any aprioristic scheme; their goal,=20 rather, is to rationalize grammar. Lojban aims to satisfy the following criteria: Full explicitness. Natural languages do not communicate exclusively through= =3D=0D =20 words. Writing makes heavy use of punctuation, typographic variation, and=20 spacing; speech depends crucially on intonation and `body language'. Lojban= =3D=0D =20 verbalizes everything. A complex technical book, or a lively social=20 interchange, should be translatable into Lojban, without communicative loss= =3D=0D ,=20 as a punctuation-free sequence of uniform alphabetic characters, or a=20 phoneme stream that might be generated on a monotone by a speech=20 synthesizer. Expressive intonation, or typographical variety, should only=20 reinforce the wording, not add to it. Logical transparency. As Cowan puts it (411), `Lojban was designed to be a = =3D=0D language that makes predicate logic speakable'. Its grammar is intended to = =3D=0D reflect ontological and epistemological assumptions which are respectable b= =3D=0D y=20 the standards of modern philosophical logic. (Quine's (1960) Word and objec= =3D=0D t=20 was an important influence on the language design.) Instead of nouns, verbs= =3D=0D ,=20 adjectives and adverbs, Lojban has two open-ended word classes:=20 predicates and proper names. On the other hand, Lojban has about 120=20 classes of grammatical words, designed to enforce precision about matters=20 such as the individual/mass/set distinction, quantification, negation, moda= =3D=0D lity,=20 and so forth. Literal glosses of Lojban often have the somewhat Martian=20 flavour of B. L. Whorf's attempts to convey the alien world-view which Whor= =3D=0D f=20 ascribed to Hopi; thus (196) the English sentence I am a traveling cosmetic= =3D=0D s=20 salesperson for Avon goes into Lojban as a sentence glossed `Avon sells a- mass-of face paint with-goer me'. Parsability. The grammatical structure of a Lojban text is mechanically=20 recoverable from the sequence of letters or phonemes it comprises. Written = =3D=0D Lojban not only lacks punctuation but in principle need not even include=20 word-spaces; word boundaries are determinable from the consonant and=20 vowel patterns in the character stream =96 otherwise, spoken Lojban could n= ot=3D=0D =20 be parsed. User-friendliness. In theory, standard predicate-logic notation could itsel= =3D=0D f be=20 made speakable, by assigning pronunciations to signs such as brackets and=20 comma. But - leaving aside the fact that any standard logical system ignore= =3D=0D s=20 many humanly-important considerations which Lojban does express, such as=20 a speaker's emotional attitude to the propositions he states =96 such a=20 language would be unusable. It would be grossly cumbersome, and would do=20 nothing to cater to speaker's needs to foreground or suppress particular=20 elements, or structure information into different perspectives. These thing= =3D=0D s are=20 facilitated in English by mechanisms alien to logical notation, such as the= =3D=0D =20 passive construction. Lojban generalizes devices such as the passive, and=20 the contrast between forethought and afterthought sequencing (`if p then q'= =3D=0D =20 versus `q, if p'), to provide even more flexibility than is typical of natu= =3D=0D ral=20 languages. Cowan discusses a fifth design feature, cultural neutrality, though one mi= =3D=0D ght=20 question whether this can ever meaningfully be ascribed to a language=20 capable of expressing the spectrum of human concerns. (In practice the=20 American cultural assumptions of most of the language's designers show=20 through often enough; for instance, the vocabulary for rulers apparently (3= =3D=0D 79)=20 recognizes no distinction between head of government and head of state.)=20 Apart from this last issue, though, the aims listed have been rather fully = =3D=0D realized. Admittedly, some aspects of the language definition seem weaker then=20 others. The `attitudinal' particles embody some questionable analyses of=20 human emotion. (The chapter on attitudinals also seems to contain more=20 misprints than other chapters.) The choice of argument places for predicate= =3D=0D s=20 sometimes seems eccentric; why should the list of arguments for the predica= =3D=0D te=20 `doctor' include the ailment treated and the treatment applied (282)? But=20 these are curable blemishes. In general, Lojban constitutes a strikingly=20 thorough working-out of its creators' goals, and its design is responsive t= =3D=0D o a=20 rich, subtle understanding of linguistics and philosophical logic. Some readers may nevertheless feel that a topic like this is just a curios= =3D=0D ity,=20 unworthy of scholarly attention. That would be a mistake, I believe. No=20 artificial language is likely to come into widespread use; but linguists ou= =3D=0D ght to=20 care whether the circle of Lojban enthusiasts prove capable of turning the = =3D=0D language into a living communicative medium among themselves. If so, then=20 the question will arise why natural languages are not more like Lojban (if = =3D=0D people can speak logically transparent languages, why don't they?). If not,= =3D=0D =20 then one will ask what differences between Lojban and natural languages=20 make the latter but not the former usable. The creators of Lojban have put = =3D=0D into=20 their language everything which we know to matter for human=20 communication; if the language fails, natural languages must have crucial=20 properties that we have not yet noticed. Either way, the Lojban project=20 deserves to be taken seriously. REFERENCE Quine, W. van O. (1960) Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Author's address: School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH U.K. E-mail: geoffs@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Received 13 May 1998)