[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 10:31 PM 12/17/02 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > I have used lo'e and le'e for Unique, but I consider my usage to > be exploratory, and in no wise canonical, and I don't care if it > gets invalidated. I consider all Lojban text written to date to > be intrinsically invalid, because it is written on the basis of > such an incomplete language and such an incomplete understanding > of it. Two years ago I would have responded with hysterical flamery. Now, I agree. When the Leading Lights remain in such fumbling disarray week after week over such fundamental concepts, can Lojban be said to have produced any emergent consciousness yet? .iseni'ibo .a'o da na'eca zo'onai jeba .a'o veldrani le lojbo
The thing I am wondering is, is ledu'u jboske a Sapir-Whorf effect?We seem to have a bunch of people, many with no formal linguistic training, plumbing the bowels of loi bangu (choose your interpretation of loi appropriately, or replace by lo'e or le'e or lei or ...), and going so far that Nick has to read research papers to see if anyone in the theory department has caught up with us.
We may give Nick his professional advancement yet, if he gains lots of paper-worthy insights into language from all this ferment, though I doubt that he thought of that when he volunteered for byfy duty (in which case the concept of Lojban as a linguistic test bed will have been vindicated).
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email 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