From jim@uazu.net Thu Aug 16 11:27:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jim@uazu.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 18:27:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 69334 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 18:27:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 18:27:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 18:27:07 -0000 Received: from aguazul.demon.co.uk ([158.152.135.59] helo=tiger) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15XRrF-000BcZ-0U for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:27:05 +0100 Received: from jim by tiger with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15XRpP-0002Vd-00 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:25:11 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:25:10 +0100 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] ma smuni zo senva Message-ID: <20010816192510.A9642@uazu.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010816004708.00cfaea0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010816004708.00cfaea0@pop.cais.com>; from lojbab@lojban.org on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:02:25AM -0400 From: Jim Peters Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 09:46 PM 8/15/01 -0600, Jay Kominek wrote: > >IMO, day dreams, nightmares, good dreams are all cases of senva. Hoping > >that you get into graduate school isn't senva. ... > > > >However, I would form some sort lujvo for all of them, and use the > >appropriate lujvo instead of senva directly, as it seems to be a gismu > >which is fairly vague and best left to lujvo/tanru construction. > > Note that this is precisely the opposite philosophy that Colin Fine once > expressed which was to Lojbanically use the broad if more vague term where > possible. He noted that English speakers are prone to being overspecific > about some things that are obvious, and that Lojban seems to make a bit of > art of being creatively vague or elliptical in leaving out things English > finds essential (like tense and number). I'm very new to Lojban, and I haven't really got my head around how meanings combine yet (in lujvo) and so on, nor the overall logical structure of the language. However, I've been having a read at all the documents on the web-site, and I'm especially interested in the Sapir-Whorf stuff. [ My background is as a UNIX coder/hacker, with a strong interest in computer languages. However I've also studied a few human languages, but only for the purpose of communication. I also use the I Ching regularly, so I've been exposed to the thought-space of the ancient Chinese ideograms. My other relevant interests are the more subtle aspects of the world, such as dealt with by the I Ching, subtle energetic interaction, healing, and other spiritual things. ] The impression I get from what I've read is that Lojban is supposed to improve thinking by providing a language that forces you to be clear about what you're saying about what. However to me this is only one side of the whole Sapir-Whorf thing. The other side is the meanings of the words. These are the building blocks that the thoughts manipulate. If the word-meanings fit badly to the world-space you're trying to think about, then you are not going to be able to think about it clearly without making up new words. (Or am I on the wrong track here ?) Take `to run' in English, which according to what I've read is `bajra' in Lojban, meaning the physical action of running. However, in English water can also run. In some way these two types of `run' are the same, because the feeling of running (when it is going well) is fluid, like water flowing. So at a more subtle level, water running and a human running are the same thing, an expression of fluidity in motion. Does this mean, then, that Lojban is biased towards a physical world-view, making it much less useful for discussing more subtle aspects of the world ? I mean, are word-meanings being defined in such a way that chooses a concrete physical-scientific world-view over a slightly more abstract one. In this example, English seems a better tool for discussing `running' than Lojban. Am I being unfair in suggesting this ? I hope I'm making sense and you can understand where I'm coming from. Jim -- Jim Peters (_)/=\~/_(_) Uazú (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) jim@ (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) www. uazu.net (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_) uazu.net