From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Thu Aug 16 11:44:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 18:44:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 76481 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 18:43:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 18:43:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 18:43:14 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id f7GIhEW24053 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:43:14 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:43:14 -0600 (MDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] ma smuni zo senva In-Reply-To: <20010816192510.A9642@uazu.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Jay Kominek On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Jim Peters wrote: > 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. Maybe someone authoritative will clarify this for me, because its something I've been unsure of, but: AFAIK, a lujvo's meaning is provided by a dictionary. Its components, however, should be chosen such that if you've never heard of the word, you'll at least have a clue as to what the speaker is talking about. > 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. You can be vague, but to be so, you have to recognize the fact that you're being vague, and chose to be so. The way I think about it is that if prevents you from being accidentally vague. (Relative to English, anyways. I recognize that the logically pedantic parties on the list probably have a vastly different viewpoint) > 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. Both the person, and the water, are klama'ing. In English they're both kinds of run, because 'run' is fairly vague word in English. A fact I remember to this day, (from my childhood) is that my parents' nice big (but still abridged!) dictionary provided something on the order of 40 definitions for the word 'run'. > 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. I think you need to be clear about what you mean by 'subtle aspects'. :) > In this example, English seems a better tool for discussing `running' > than Lojban. Am I being unfair in suggesting this ? I think you're being unfair. English is a better tool for discussing the meanings of the English word 'run', while Lojban is a better tool for discussing the meaning (singular) of the Lojban word bajra. - Jay Kominek Plus =C3=A7a change, plus c'est la m=C3=AAme chose