From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Oct 20 02:03:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 09:03:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10371 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 09:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 09:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 09:03:23 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic248.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.248]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9K9Dfp48405 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:13:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020042929.00b63dc0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:07:17 -0400 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: literalism [was: Re: [lojban] Re: looking at arjlujv.txt In-Reply-To: <76.401ea77.2720b0a9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:16 PM 10/19/2000 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 00-10-19 15:11:40 EDT, maikl! writes: ><< words that don't mean what they're supposed to mean. >> >Whence this "supposed"? That is literalism at its worst. Yes and no - it is literalism, but not its worst. There seems to be nothing wrong in my mind with coming up with a fairly literal word for a concept, one which algorithmically generates the desired places using one of the standard conventions. That because *A* word for the concept, and it is one which "works" for a lot of people. I also think that leaving out rafsi for cmavo that disambiguate the tanru meaning and make the place structure more algorithmically derivable will come to be left off from words of, say, more than 4 components, unless constructed to match a pattern of shorter lujvo that have those components. If someone is inspired to produce a more kenning-like lujvo for a concept, one which is significantly shorter than this "natural" one, it might come to be used IF the short word does not suggest some other concept that differs. If we could imagine some other useful meaning for "blade hammer" than "axe", then I would understand Michael's complaint about a "word that doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean". I can't at the moment think of such a concept. Back when I was still working on old Loglan, I coined hundreds of lujvo that added one term onto a gismu and thus conveyed some derived or restricted meaning that in English is a different word. These words will probably make it into the language too. They are not as literal as some now being made, but I doubt if many are artistically kenning-like. >Words we construct >mean what we construct them to mean and *that* is what they are *supposed* to >do. Yes, but most people are trying to construct words that mean what some English word means, and the natural result of such coining is a) a direct mapping between the two language and a legit complaint that Lojban is becoming "encoded English", b) while the "meaning" may be clear to an English speaker who sees the derivation in the dictionary, if the word does not follow any of the conventions, then it becomes a new gismu - one whose place structure must be completely memorized and not figured out. Since people find memorizing place structures to be undesirable and onerous, this leads to a negative reaction against words that don't follow one of the conventions; c) people from other native languages may not find the words quite as "obvious", and the words they coin will seem less natural to English speakers. Since we imbued Lojban with the underlying standard that you don't make expressions that mean "what you want them to mean", but rather you make ones which you can get others to understand, this puts a pressure on wordmaking towards thinking of how the word will be looked at by others who have not seen it, and that is where the literalism comes from. >To be sure, when they are constructed out of pre-existing pieces, we >have some obligation to leave a trail from the parts to the whole, And so far, those are the only kind that are being made. >but there >is not obligation to make that path fit someone's a priori rules about how >that path should run. The scenic route often has a lot to say for it over a >route along the section lines. I am just as adamant that you are, that a word that makes it into the language that does not fit the conventions, remains in the language. But people aren't making such words because so far they are having little trouble being "literal". Meanwhile people are thinking about what they want the words to mean - I have no problem with fu'ivla displacing "le'avla" for borrowing, and I am glad that we have disposed with all of TLI's conventions based on "mao" - a scientist of any kind is not a senmao (Lojban skezba) because s/he doesn't build a science out of materials or components. I'm also glad that we don't have "man-do" for "manning a ship" - you are fondly remembering the word for axe, while forgetting the atrocities that were coined "to mean what JCB wanted them to mean" with no thought for how they would be understood by others. ><having the longer, more accurate forms available for the same meanings.>> >Whoa! If it has the same meaning, how is it more accurate? I think we means to say "for the meaning of the intended English language word that is being translated". >Come to that, even if it doesn't have the same meaning, how is it more >accurate? It more accurately reflects, by conventional analysis, the English word meaning that is being translated. >I suppose >this means that having a short, snappy, intuitive way of saying something is >OK, but only if we have a long form that corresponds strictly to a >prerestricted set of rules also available to get to the same place. And, of >course, we always do -- those kinds of tanru and lujvo are a dime-a-dozen and >a machine (or a rough human equivalent) can grind them out. But they are not >proper additions to the language (any more than strict versions of maikl's >quirky Lojban sentences are creative or poetic). Why aren't they "proper additions to the language"? If someone uses them, and they are understood (as they are more likely to be than the short ones), they work and will be one of the thousand flowers. ><clarity seeming more beautiful than imprecision...>> >Me too. And that has what to do with the issue at hand? A good metaphor is >not imprecise; it is often more accurate than a bad definition (i.e., most >definitions as given and certainly most that fit into compounds) You cited blade-hammer as a "good metaphor". Is there some longer metaphor that is more precise and definitional? Maybe "hammer ke cut-tool", but that is redundant since a hammer is a kind of tool already. So you might end up with "cut-hammer" which in my mind is just as good as "blade-hammer" for axe. ><the first to agree, are fascinating.>> >I remember some remarks under the title "kennings" from a couple of years >ago. Would you care to remind us what they are and how they fit in (and tell >-- rather than remind -- the majority of the present company, who have joined >since those days)? That was Athelstan's work from back in 1990-1. Long couple of years %^) lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org