[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@l...> At 03:46 AM 6/3/03 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>I wonder whether "izpolzovat" is as frequent as "use". It would seem so,
Now I'm just going to veer off on a tangent, but: Greek xrisimopio, with at least 5 syllables (4 if you get io > jo, but that's stigmatised) is even longer, and is the unmarked contemporary word for 'use'. That said, it's clear that it's a reimportation from learned Greek (hence no io > jo); the real vernacular way of saying it was "to kano", "do (with) it", or just the instrumental preposition.
Tendencies of language like Zipf are very easy to disrupt through other factors --- as Bob is in fact alluding to. Language change is like that.
Zipf is what Lojbanists make of it, though, and they choose to make a lot of it. And Lojbanists often purposely avoid what their natlang does (it's the same with Klingon -- and quite unlike most of Esperanto), so the adherence to Zipf is as dogmatic as anything else. And if that means people obsess about monosyllables, well, that's the culture they've been passed down from Loglan, I don't see the point in trying to dismiss it. (Not that I've kept track of who's arguing what here...)
English has killed its inflections; comparing it to inflection-mongers like Russian and Greek is unfair. The number of monosyllabic Greek nouns and verbs is minimal; and when you know you're going to lose 2 syllables to inflection, 5-syllable words just ain't that scary any more. So this is apples and oranges.
And a reminder, folks, that teleological arguments about language change are intuitive and appealing --- and like most simple, easy to understand answers, are wrong.
> > >Furthermore,> > >we regularly come up against stuff that is easy to say in English but> > >that nobody can find a way to say in Lojban > >> > I think that this is partly lack of fluency. I think they can be said in> > Lojban, but we haven't thought things through always. > >I hope Nick will give this one of his splendidly scornful tirades.
Didn't quite know why, because the thinking through is what we're doing, and the fluency has got to come from somewhere...
>If I may echo Jordan's rhetoric, this notion of "lack of fluency" is >a load of shite. Sure we lack fluency. But there is nothing there to >be fluent in. If they can be said in Lojban, the bits of Lojban they >can be said in are the bits of Lojban that haven't been created yet. Correct. And once we agree upon a pattern for expressing that sort ofthing, fluent language habits would spread its usage to all manner of like situations. I contend that the reason we don't agree is because there is too little fluency, too little experience trying to communicate. If we had gained that experience, we would be able to agree, and likely there would be somewhat less contention about how to say it either formally or sloppily.
... here, on the other hand, Bob would get a splendidly scornful tirade, if I hadn't already issued one elsewhere tonight. :-)
You persist in your naturalism, Bob, and I'll persist in my formalism. Without the guidance of formality, what people would come up with in their experience would be what we routinely condemn as malglico. And Lojban would be Novial Mark 2. It's not fluency that's the issue, it's research. Fluency didn't solve the gadri issue, it just assumed {mi nitcu lo mikce} was hunky-dory for "I need a doctor".
>So when I say "nobody can find a way to say in Lojban", I mean >"nobody can find a way to say in the bits of Lojban that have been >created so far". The solution to that is xod's and Jorge's: start creating more Lojban.
Balderash.I say that with all due deference to xod and xorxes, who are good users of the language, who I do not presume to rival, who have both put their money where their mouth is, who the language is hugely indebted to.
But balderash nonetheless. Jorge's more Lojban involved ignoring the baseline; you may be slippery about when and how it's a bad thing, but my business is defending the baseline, I can't turn around and say that Jorge is solving our baseline problems by ignoring it. (Jorge *is* providing signal service by insisting that there are problems; but what you're saying now is tantamount to what you've condemned on other occasions as railroading through contra-baseline usage.) As for xod, he has himself said what he thinks of existing usage; I know why he thinks it, and while I think he is condemning overhastily, his comparison to four year olds is apt.
We don't need quantity, we need quality. Let the quantity be based on sure foundations.
I don't think we know or agree on what are the most important distinctions. It is that disagreement that led in 1994 to the currentformulation which I can defend only in saying that "it is baselined", butnever approved of.
Then if you have reasons why it should be reversed, you'll need to present them to the BPFK in due course. If you can't formulate them and noone else does either (though I'm sure xod can devise something :-) ) --- then yes, it stays, and the rest of the gadri definition will need to take it as a basis. This is a terribly serious issue for Lojban, as John has stated (gadri being the only distinctions you can't make optional in the language); we can't work through it based on hunches.
Meanwhile I note that TLI and JCB never seemed to be bothered with only having around half the gadri that we have and using them even more sloppily.
Hardly a recommendation. :-)
>I may be wrong, but my impression is that colour terms were chosen >because they were an easy way to prove a general point, not because >they were the only way. Originally that may have been true. My understanding is that the 1980sKay/Kempton experiments were NOT SWH experiments - they were looking atsomething else, and spotted something unexpected.
My recollection was that it was tacked on to another project as an SW test --- but with little forethought, and certainly no expectation of a disconfirmation.
** yISotQo', jupwI'. yIQuch... Dr Nick Nicholas, French/Italian, chaq DuQuchmoHlaHbej yuch. University of Melbourne, Don't be distressed, my friend. Be happy... Australia. Perhaps chocolate can cheer you up. nickn@hidden.email -- David Barron, Klingon Opera _Kang_. http://www.opoudjis.net