From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Oct 22 08:45:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 22 Oct 2000 15:45:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 19404 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2000 15:45:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Oct 2000 15:45:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Oct 2000 15:45:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.66] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Oct 2000 15:45:08 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:45:05 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: RE:literalism Message-ID: <8sv221+lb60@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <62.83ff879.27237f0a@aol.com> 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: 2864 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: =20 > * Anyhow, general remark. Ultimately, if Lojban survives, literalism has to=20 > lose. * The vocabulary of Lojban has to expand beyond the 6000 concepts or so that are=20 > encoded in the gismu in their various places. And there are only three ways=20 > to go: borrowing, creation, or metaphor (in the real -- not the JCB/Lo??an --=20 > way). Literalism can't add to the semantic field; at best it can reduce a=20 > new concept to an old one, making it not new at all (that is what I meant by=20 > saying that literal tanru and lujvo don't add to the language -- of course=20 > they add words and text -- but not concepts, except as subsumed under=20 > existing ones). So, since creating new gismu is strengst verboten (remember=20 > all those WW2 prison movies?) and borrowing is hard and risky (and vaguely=20 > unlojbanic unless absolutely necessary) we will metaphor sooner or later.=20=20 > And I say the sooner the better -- when a good one comes along.=20 And when it=20 > does, don't carp at it, take it as the gift it is and rejoice. Although pretty new to Lojban, I'm fighting on pycyn's side with all my heart: total refrain from coining metaphoric tanru/lujvo=20 and sticking to literalism means death (better: abortion) or - in the best case - self-castration to Lojban! Look at the Chinese=20 language and its linguistic power: with all its "concreteness" (this being a main feature!), the words semantics are not at all sharp=20 outlined but more or less blurred, the compounds not restricted to e.g. the components (common) match but open and very free.=20 This is because the words comprehension are indeed "pictures" (I'm not at all referring to the characters!) rather than fenced-in=20 linguistic concepts. And, the building of compounds (grammatical) is quasi unrestricted (albeit subject to convention). I like Lojban for its "gismu" and, most of all, the inventive way it has "rafsi" in order to provide a powerful capability for coining=20 *short* compounds. I hate Lojban for the lujvo monsters I happened to see, hardly pronounceable and understandable by humans because stuffed up with=20 *grammatical correct* cmavo at the few remaining brivla's expense,=20 seemingly created by grammar-freaks without intuition and=20 ideas of the "real world's pictures". My prophecy: Follow this way (of strict & constructivistic literalism) and Lojban will be a=20 dead languages before ever having been born! There will be nothing left to "rejoice" about. The "usage" (i.e. the non-usage) will be=20 the proof! Do not look toward German etc.! Expressions like (good old) "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapit=E4n" are a persiflage on "real=20 bad", very often bureaucratic/ridiculous German linguistic/social features (still worse than the "Strengstens verboten!" you know=20 from the lawn or office signs in post-WW2-Nazi-movies). .aulun.