gismu rant: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


*.i ckafi najo tcati ''That means (something) is coffee or tea, but not both.'' Context, of course, indicates that the something is the drink under question!
If the original purpose of Lojban is to test the [[jbocre: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis|Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis]], which is that a language shapes the thoughts of its speakers, and most of the gismu are relations with English-worded definitions, isn't Lojban inevitably just as restrictive as English is as far as vocabulary is concerned?


''It's almost an exact translation of 'coffee or tea', which is what the phrase gets quickly reduced to in usage. In the context of somebody serving drinks, it's perfectly clear.''
No. The definitions include clarifiers that, for instance, ''salci'' "celebrate" includes funerals.


It might be clear since there aren't many other possibilities, but it's not really accurate. If you want to use a form like that, ''ckafi je'i tcati'' is better, since at least it asks a question.
One can attempt to define, say, Japanese words in English, but just because you learn the English definition doesn't mean you truly grasp the nuances of the Japanese word. As, I think, xod also believes, we are in the process of discovering the nuances of the words. The definitions of the words in the gismu list aren't the real meanings of the words, merely that which can be encoded in English. --[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]]


''How about adding .aupei, to indicate that the bridi questions a desire of the listener, which sufficiently contextualizes the zo'es.'' I still don't like the ''najo'', but it's better.
----


*.i pau do djica tu'a loi ckafi je'i tcati
Huh? Why? Not that many of the ''gismu'' correspond closely with any English word; they tend to have broader meanings. Dictionary "definitions", including the ''gismu'' definitions, are not mathematical definitions, but more like indications of the typical meanings. The real meanings live in that mushy stuff in people's heads.


Possible answers are: naje (the second), jenai (the first), je (both), ja (or, not helpful), joi (mixed together, yum).
This is an absolutist argument. If it held in the strong sense, then the only way to create a truly artificial [[jbocre: conlang|conlang]] would be to base it on a theory which could not be described in a natural language at all! Otherwise you could say that, after all, it was only an encoding of its natural language description, and not "artificial" at all.


''And to which i answer, "go'i".''
''mi'e [[jbocre: jezrax|jezrax]]''


* .u'i you can do that to the English, too. I once took a math course from a teacher who had some rather oddly phrased questions ever since he gave a test which was all true/false - the directions said to ''mark whether each statement is true or false'', and of course he got a paper with nothing but ''yes''. Just try taking a test with directions that mean that but spend way to long making absolutely certain that they are unambiguous. - mi'e. [[jbocre: .kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]
--But there is indeed a sense in which this is a valid


Other possible ways to ask:
concern. If a person only learns ''[[jbocre: gismu|gismu]]'' by the keyword


*.i do djica tu'a ma poi cmima loi ckafi ku ce loi tcati
and not by the ''[[jbocre: sumti|sumti]]'', they will become an un-''[[jbocre: lobykai|lobykai]]''
*.i do djica tu'a ma po'u loi ckafi .onai loi tcati


*.i loi ckafi loi tcati zo'u do djica tu'a ma
user of Lojban, and their ''jbosku'' will tend to resemble


''Also all the "djica tu'a"'s can be replaced by something like "ctidji" or "pixydji".''
encoded English. All of us, in truth, start that way. But after


(or pe'ipei) ''Do you think coffee or tea? (???)''
you have begun to learn to distinguish ''gismu'' with similar-


And ''furthermore'', you can go Klingon, bypassing the interrogative, and say:
meaning English keywords, their true meanings will more and more


*.i ko cuxna fi loi ckafi kuce loi tcati
influence your usage. This is not, however, an especially [[jbocre: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis horfish|Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis horfish]]


Methods involving set membership in some way (i.e. everything but methods involving ''ji'') are known to be the only reliable method if you have more than two alternatives to choose from.
effect--yet. That will only occur when you are ''[[jbocre: bellyfeel erceiving|bellyfeel erceiving]]'' in terms of those relationships...
 
''If you have more than one ''ji'' you can repeat all of the sumti with the correct logical connectives between them. You can also do this with only one ''ji'', but it's not necessary.'' '''Could be wrong, but wasn't this proven not to work?'''
 
How so? You only run into problems in multiple connectives when you attempt to use things like ''o'' or ''onai'' - which are patently unhelpful in answering a question, anyway. -rab.spir
 
*''.e'u cuxna lo pamei (be le se pinxe bei)'' {or} ''(befi) le ckafi .e le tcati''
 
-----
 
Such a wonderful language, this Lojban, offering so many ways to say the same thing, and so much potential for endless discussion of said different phrasings for the simplest of ideas! Unambiguous does not mean canonical!

Revision as of 16:50, 4 November 2013

If the original purpose of Lojban is to test the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which is that a language shapes the thoughts of its speakers, and most of the gismu are relations with English-worded definitions, isn't Lojban inevitably just as restrictive as English is as far as vocabulary is concerned?

No. The definitions include clarifiers that, for instance, salci "celebrate" includes funerals.

One can attempt to define, say, Japanese words in English, but just because you learn the English definition doesn't mean you truly grasp the nuances of the Japanese word. As, I think, xod also believes, we are in the process of discovering the nuances of the words. The definitions of the words in the gismu list aren't the real meanings of the words, merely that which can be encoded in English. --Jay

Huh? Why? Not that many of the gismu correspond closely with any English word; they tend to have broader meanings. Dictionary "definitions", including the gismu definitions, are not mathematical definitions, but more like indications of the typical meanings. The real meanings live in that mushy stuff in people's heads.

This is an absolutist argument. If it held in the strong sense, then the only way to create a truly artificial conlang would be to base it on a theory which could not be described in a natural language at all! Otherwise you could say that, after all, it was only an encoding of its natural language description, and not "artificial" at all.

mi'e jezrax

--But there is indeed a sense in which this is a valid

concern. If a person only learns gismu by the keyword

and not by the sumti, they will become an un-lobykai

user of Lojban, and their jbosku will tend to resemble

encoded English. All of us, in truth, start that way. But after

you have begun to learn to distinguish gismu with similar-

meaning English keywords, their true meanings will more and more

influence your usage. This is not, however, an especially Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis horfish

effect--yet. That will only occur when you are bellyfeel erceiving in terms of those relationships...

Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=gismu_rant&oldid=74891"