Subject: Re: [lojban] ma smuni zo senva

From: Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:43:14 -0600 (MDT)

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 <[email-masked]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose