Lojban In General

LA

LA is the easiest gadri to explain and to use. LA isolates one of the
most fundamental properties of language: That an arbitrary sound can
indicate an arbitrary referent in the world. With LA we have complete
freedom to use this power of language. We can name anything any name, even
if the thing is already named or the name is already taken. From the
perspective of LA, words are just sounds, which anyone can attach freely to
anything. With LA, we are each Adam.

LO

With LO we move into another fundamental property of language: It is
spoken in communities, and within those language communities sounds are more
firmly associated
with meanings. Words have not just meanings to particular speakers in
particular
circumstances, but meanings which
persist stably and are collectively recognized. In the case of
LO, what we're talking about specifically is the meanings of the words of
Lojban, as agreed by the community as a whole. This
pool of shared meanings is the fundamental resource we all draw on in using
Lojban to communicate.
A word is like a box. Each box has a label on it, such as "plise".
Together we form a consensus about what sort of things we expect to be
inside of a box labelled "plise" (namely, apples). If you have some apples
you want to refer to, you can put them into the box that everyone has agreed
about, so that when they see the label on the box they'll know what's
inside. Saying LO is thus a promise that what we're referring to really-is
the sort of thing we've all become accustomed to putting in that sort of
box.
Once you've taken it that far, though, you can go ahead and take it to
the next level of abstraction: You can manipulate the boxes themselves,
without even bothering to put anything in them. That is, you can say "mi
djica lo nu mi ponse lo plise" (I want to possess something in a box
labelled "plise"), and rather than thinking of a particular apple which
you're imagining putting into the box, you're just asking for one of those
"plise" boxes, because you want the sort of thing which we all agree is
kept in that sort of box.

LE

However, the truth of human use of language is not quite so simple.
For instance, in practice people don't actually have to restrict themselves
to putting into boxes what the label says is supposed to be there. The
culturally shared meanings that associate labelled boxes
with referents in the world can give way in the course of a
conversation to immediately constructed meanings; the participants in a
conversation can use the boxes at hand to hold whatever needs to be
held. When you say LE you are saying what box you are using, but you
don't implicitly promise that you'll really
put in the box what we've all agreed is the normal thing to put in the box.
The perspective of LE acknowledges the
reality that socially constructed meanings can be repurposed for
immediate ends.
The other quality which is often mentioned as part of the nature of LE
is that the speaker has a particular referent in mind. They're not
using an empty
box to stand in for the sort of thing it usually contains; there's
actually something in the box.
To me this arises inevitably from the
fact that a LE box does not necessarily contain the socially agreed contents
of a box with its label. Consider what you're saying if you say "le plise
ku": It's a box labelled
"plise", but you're not promising that there's apples
inside, only something which you've decided to put in the apples box.
If saying "mi djica lo nu ponse le plise" (I want to
possess what's in the apples box) could be interpreted as
if it were pointing at a theoretical/empty box, as LO can, then what
would be in the box? You'd be asking for a box which contains
something which *could* be put into an apples box, but may or may not
actually be apples-- in other words, since we've already agreed that
anything could theoretically be put into any
box, you could get absolutely anything. Since that is uselessly vague, it
follows logically that when you say LE you have more of an idea in mind
of what you are describing than simply what its label is.

For a long time I've been carefully considering these three
perspectives of LA, LO and LE and gradually forming my own understanding of
them. I'd appreciate any comments on or criticism of this draft essay.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

Posted by seryf on Mon 01 of Sep, 2008 14:47 GMT posts: 71

very well thought out. very handy to use. i need a good way to explain those 3 (and all the others) for the podcast.

---Original Message---
From: Brett Williams <mungojelly@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:53 pm
Subject: lojban LA/LO/LE: Three Perspectives on Language

LA
?
?????LA is the easiest gadri to explain and to use. ?LA isolates one of the most fundamental properties of language: That an arbitrary sound can indicate an arbitrary referent in the world. ?With LA we have complete freedom to use this power of language. ?We can name anything any name, even if the thing is already named or the name is already taken. ?From the perspective of LA, words are just sounds, which anyone can attach freely to anything. ?With LA, we are each Adam.

LO

?????With LO we move into another fundamental property of language: It is spoken in communities,?and within?those?language communities?sounds?are?more firmly?associated with?meanings.??Words?have?not?just?meanings?to?particular?speakers?in?particular circumstances, but?meanings?which persist?stably?and?are?collectively?recognized. ?In?the?case?of LO,?what?we're?talking?about?specifically?is?the?meanings of?the?words?of Lojban,?as?agreed?by?the?community?as?a?whole.??This pool?of?shared?meanings?is?the fundamental resource?we?all?draw?on?in?using Lojban?to communicate.?

?????A word is like a box. ?Each box has a label on it, such as "plise". ?Together we form a consensus about what sort of things we expect to be inside of a box labelled "plise" (namely, apples). ?If you have some apples you want to refer to, you can put them into the box that everyone has agreed about, so that when they see the label on the box they'll know what's inside. ?Saying LO is thus a promise that what we're referring to really-is the sort of thing we've all become accustomed to putting in that sort of box.

?????Once you've taken it that far, though, you can go ahead and take it to the next level of abstraction: You can manipulate the boxes themselves, without even bothering to put anything in them. ?That is, you can say "mi djica lo nu mi ponse lo plise" (I want to possess something in a box labelled "plise"), and rather than thinking of a particular apple which you're imagining putting into the box, you're just asking for one of?those "plise" boxes,?because you want?the?sort?of?thing?which we?all?agree?is kept?in?that?sort?of?box.

LE

?????However, the truth of human use of language is?not?quite so simple. ?For instance, in practice?people don't actually have to restrict themselves to putting into boxes what the label says is supposed to be?there.??The culturally?shared?meanings?that associate?labelled?boxes with?referents?in?the world?can?give way?in?the?course?of?a conversation?to?immediately?constructed?meanings;?the participants in?a conversation can?use?the?boxes?at?hand to hold?whatever needs?to?be held.??When?you?say LE?you are saying?what?box you?are?using, but you don't?implicitly?promise?that you'll really put?in?the?box?what?we've?all?agreed?is?the normal?thing?to?put?in?the?box. ?The?perspective?of LE?acknowledges?the reality?that?socially?constructed?meanings?can?be?repurposed?for immediate?ends.?

?????The other quality which is often mentioned as part of the nature of LE is?that?the speaker?has?a?particular?referent?in mind. ?They're?not using?an?empty box?to?stand?in?for?the?sort?of?thing?it?usually?contains;?there's?actually?something?in?the?box. ?To me?this?arises?inevitably?from?the fact?that?a?LE?box?does?not?necessarily?contain the?socially agreed contents of?a?box?with?its label.??Consider?what?you're?saying?if?you?say "le?plise ku": It's a?box?labelled "plise",?but?you're?not?promising?that?there's?apples inside,?only?something?which you've?decided?to?put?in?the?apples?box. ?If?saying "mi djica?lo?nu ponse?le?plise" (I?want?to possess?what's?in?the?apples?box) could be?interpreted as if?it?were?pointing?at?a?theoretical/empty box,?as LO can,?then?what would?be?in?the?box???You'd?be asking?for?a?box which?contains something?which *could*?be?put?into?an?apples box,?but?may?or?may?not actually?be apples-- in other words, since we've already agreed that anything could theoretically be put into any box,?you?could?get?absolutely?anything.??Since?that?is?uselessly?vague,?it follows?logically?that?when?you say LE you?have?more of?an?idea?in?mind of?what?you are?describing?than?simply?what?its?label?is.

?????For?a long?time?I've been carefully considering these three perspectives of LA, LO and LE and gradually forming my own understanding of them. ?I'd appreciate any comments on or criticism of this draft essay.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

Posted by namor on Mon 01 of Sep, 2008 15:18 GMT posts: 42

On Monday 01 September 2008 06:53:49 Brett Williams wrote:
> LA
>
> LA is the easiest gadri to explain and to use. LA isolates one of the
> most fundamental properties of language: That an arbitrary sound can
> indicate an arbitrary referent in the world. With LA we have complete
> freedom to use this power of language. We can name anything any name, even
> if the thing is already named or the name is already taken. From the
> perspective of LA, words are just sounds, which anyone can attach freely to
> anything. With LA, we are each Adam.

Your boxes explanation for lo/le seems handy to me.
LA being but a sound-thing connective, however, confuses
me as until now I assumed {la cribe} for instance would (in translation)
be the one 'named bear', not the one 'named cribe'.
(l4b stated that IIRC)

That would be not just a sound-thing connection,
but a (sound)-meaning-thing connection.

la cribe
The one who is called by the word meaning bear
The one called bear

--

mu'o mi'e ki'a

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by pdf23ds on Mon 01 of Sep, 2008 15:24 GMT posts: 143

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:14, Roman Naumann <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your boxes explanation for lo/le seems handy to me.
> LA being but a sound-thing connective, however, confuses
> me as until now I assumed {la cribe} for instance would (in translation)
> be the one 'named bear', not the one 'named cribe'.
> (l4b stated that IIRC)
>
> That would be not just a sound-thing connection,
> but a (sound)-meaning-thing connection.

Well, in the same way American Indian names are often translated into
English semantically instead of phonetically, words used with "la" are
likewise. But if the "la" word isn't something with any particular
semantic meaning on its own, or if the person translating felt like
it, it would be translated phonetically (i.e. transliterated). Whereas
something used with "le" or "lo" would always need to be translated
semantically.

Chris Capel
--
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On 9/1/08, Roman Naumann <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your boxes explanation for lo/le seems handy to me.
> LA being but a sound-thing connective, however, confuses
> me as until now I assumed {la cribe} for instance would (in translation)
> be the one 'named bear', not the one 'named cribe'.
> (l4b stated that IIRC)
>

When using a word of Lojban as a name, there is perhaps some connection to
the meaning, or at least to the word. That is, the word "cribe"
is still the word "cribe" when it's naming something,
and continues to remind us all of a bear.

OTOH, the word "cribe", which in its
LO usage is restricted to labelling bears, when used
with LA can be used as a label for absolutely anything you
want. I can name my stomach "cribe" and then say that after I write this
post I'm going to put some breakfast in "la cribe", and/or I can call you
"cribe" and say that I'm writing an answer to a question posed by
"la cribe", and/or I can name the very idea of naming everything
"cribe" itself "cribe" and say that I'm writing to "la cribe" about
"la cribe" before putting some cereal in "la cribe".
I don't have to only name bear-like things "cribe", or only name one thing
"cribe" at a time, etc.-- I can just use this label "cribe", and
even though its mundane purpose is to label bears,
I'm free to use it to label anything, as long as I spin myself the right
amount of slack by saying "la" instead of "lo".

mu'o mi'e la se ckiku

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Brett Williams <mungojelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> LA
>
> LA is the easiest gadri to explain and to use. LA isolates one of the
> most fundamental properties of language: That an arbitrary sound can
> indicate an arbitrary referent in the world.

That sounds right.

> With LA we have complete
> freedom to use this power of language. We can name anything any name, even
> if the thing is already named or the name is already taken. From the
> perspective of LA, words are just sounds, which anyone can attach freely to
> anything. With LA, we are each Adam.

This part is not so clear though. Take the name {lojban} for example. Yes,
we could use {la lojban} to refer to Esperanto, but doing that would be no
less confusing than using {lo perli} to talk about apples. And from the other
side, we could make up some idiosyncratic name like {lodjiklang} and use
it to refer to Lojban, but that's no different than what we can do
with {lo}, for
example if we decide to use {lo grutrpome} instead of {lo plise} to talk about
apples. So this does not seem to be an essential difference between la and
lo. Perhaps because the creation or assignment of proper names is more
frequent than the creation of new common names, that gives rise to the
illusion that we have total freedom with them, but I think this is
just a matter
of degree: there are some proper names that are as well established as
common names, and conversely some common names that can be as
freshly created as proper names. la/lo don't care either way.

> LO
>
> With LO we move into another fundamental property of language: It is
> spoken in communities, and within those language communities sounds are more
> firmly associated
> with meanings. Words have not just meanings to particular speakers in particular
> circumstances, but meanings which
> persist stably and are collectively recognized. In the case of
> LO, what we're talking about specifically is the meanings of the words of
> Lojban, as agreed by the community as a whole. This
> pool of shared meanings is the fundamental resource we all draw on in using
> Lojban to communicate.

This part doesn't really differ from names. It's not a requirement for
{lo} that
it be used with words known to the whole speech community. {lo} can just
as well be used for technical terms known to a few, with nonce short-lived
words, even nonsense words invented for the current convesation. {lo}
doesn't care how well established the word is.

> A word is like a box. Each box has a label on it, such as "plise".
> Together we form a consensus about what sort of things we expect to be
> inside of a box labelled "plise" (namely, apples). If you have some apples
> you want to refer to, you can put them into the box that everyone has agreed
> about, so that when they see the label on the box they'll know what's
> inside. Saying LO is thus a promise that what we're referring to really-is
> the sort of thing we've all become accustomed to putting in that sort of
> box.
> Once you've taken it that far, though, you can go ahead and take it to
> the next level of abstraction: You can manipulate the boxes themselves,
> without even bothering to put anything in them. That is, you can say "mi
> djica lo nu mi ponse lo plise" (I want to possess something in a box
> labelled "plise"), and rather than thinking of a particular apple which
> you're imagining putting into the box, you're just asking for one of those
> "plise" boxes, because you want the sort of thing which we all agree is
> kept in that sort of box.

This part sounds right. (Minor point: in your example, the sort of thing
you want will be kept in the "nu mi ponse lo plise" box, not in the
"plise" box.)

So {lo} is used to talk about things in word-boxes, while {la} is used
to talk about things with word-tags stuck to them. But some tags may
be just as permanent as some boxes, and we can create new boxes
just as we can create new tags. Perhaps it's easier with the new tags
in the sense that anyone that sees us sticking it to the thing will
immediately be able to use it, while a new box may require some
explaining to do to make sure others understand what kind of things
are meant to go there. Showing some of the things that can go there
may not be enough to tell what all the things that can go there are.

> LE
>
> When you say LE you are saying what box you are using, but you
> don't implicitly promise that you'll really
> put in the box what we've all agreed is the normal thing to put in the box.

So with {le} we (mis)use a box as if it were a sticker label. No wonder it
won't stick for long.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On 9/1/08, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps because the creation or assignment of proper names is more
> frequent than the creation of new common names, that gives rise to the
> illusion that we have total freedom with them,

Indeed, I'm forced to agree that how much freedom we have isn't the
fundamental distinction. We have complete freedom in all cases, of course--
we could come up with a whole different language, if we were so
dissatisfied.

OK so help me dig deeper into what the real distinction is between the
LA-space and the LO-space..

There are definitely two different semantic spaces. The main distinction
between them is cultural, is how we relate to each of them. We relate to
the LA-space by filling it with
lots of names of people, some names of places, and not
much else. We relate to the LO-space by thinking of it as a bunch of "words
with meanings" and arguing about place structures..

In putting together the Amber dracyselkei, I've been imagining these
characters I'm calling the "crida". The crida speak Lojban with a
distinctive style. For instance, they like the construction: "lo lo lo
broda ku brode ku brodi". I'm also considering having them use LA-space for
some different things, like for instance naming an emotion "xrerx" and then
describing someone who's feeling it as "lo cinmo be la .xrerx."

This part doesn't really differ from names. It's not a requirement for
> {lo} that it be used with words known to the whole speech community. {lo}
> can just
> as well be used for technical terms known to a few, with nonce short-lived
> words, even nonsense words invented for the current convesation. {lo}
> doesn't care how well established the word is.

You can certainly use {lo} with a less established word, but I feel like
there's still some distinction there. It's a cultural distinction, again.
it's about how we feel about words and their contexts.

I feel like all of the brivla in large part go together in one basket in my
mind, as "the words of Lojban". Even words which are transient or
occasional are somehow part of that same ecosystem.

You can tell that people feel something like that, by the way that they
react to new words & to synonyms, etc., with an awareness of their relation
to the whole.

The LA-space is a distinct place, which is also populated-- "cizra" has a
meaning in both places, for instance.

So {lo} is used to talk about things in word-boxes, while {la} is used
> to talk about things with word-tags stuck to them. But some tags may
> be just as permanent as some boxes, and we can create new boxes
> just as we can create new tags. Perhaps it's easier with the new tags
> in the sense that anyone that sees us sticking it to the thing will
> immediately be able to use it, while a new box may require some
> explaining to do to make sure others understand what kind of things
> are meant to go there. Showing some of the things that can go there
> may not be enough to tell what all the things that can go there are.
>

We really ought to when inventing new boxes, new brivla, to give a lot of
examples.

Even most of the gismu are lacking a lot of flesh on their bones, IMHO.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

On 9/3/08, Brett Williams <mungojelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK so help me dig deeper into what the real distinction is between the
> LA-space and the LO-space..

I think you got it right: with {la} a word labels the thing(s) we want
to talk about directly, with {lo} a word labels the box in which we put
the thing(s) we want to talk about.

But that's how la/lo work, it doesn't really tell us which words are
suitable labels for which things or for which boxes.

> We relate to
> the LA-space by filling it with lots of names of people, some
> names of places, and not much else.

I guess pets are an extension of "people". There are also company and
brand names, some events, dates or periods of time, ships, ... I guess
anything with enough individuality usually gets a name.

> In putting together the Amber dracyselkei, I've been imagining these
> characters I'm calling the "crida". The crida speak Lojban with a
> distinctive style. For instance, they like the construction: "lo lo lo
> broda ku brode ku brodi".

Obviously non-human. Such "center embedded" phrases are notoriously
hard for humans to parse: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_embedding>

> I'm also considering having them use LA-space for
> some different things, like for instance naming an emotion "xrerx" and then
> describing someone who's feeling it as "lo cinmo be la .xrerx."

That's more human-friendly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by pdf23ds on Fri 05 of Sep, 2008 00:46 GMT posts: 143

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 13:45, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously non-human. Such "center embedded" phrases are notoriously
> hard for humans to parse: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_embedding>

Oddly, that link to center embedding leads (with one intermediate
page) to this1 page containing what appears to be a rather egregious
misrepresentation of Lojban, Loglan, and the split between them.

1 http://specgram.com/CLI.2/02.mlp.html

"You could demand more precision from language. If you travel too far
down that road you arrive at Loglan and Lojban, the so-called
"logical" constructed languages. But their history clearly illustrates
both that human nature and politics will prevail over any constraints
of language, and that humans are not adept at ferreting out ambiguity
in language to the nth degree. The early proponents of this
"universal" language, which is geekier than Klingon and less useful
than Volapük, fought so bitterly that they divided their already
limited resources into two isomorphic but mutually unintelligible
languages. That, and the fact that being so carefully logical is so
hard that no one can speak either language at speed. And, lo, I have
digressed."

Odd coincidence.

Chris Capel
--
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by pdf23ds on Fri 05 of Sep, 2008 00:56 GMT posts: 143

> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 13:45, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Obviously non-human. Such "center embedded" phrases are notoriously
>> hard for humans to parse: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_embedding>
>
> Oddly, that link to center embedding leads (with one intermediate
> page) to this1 page containing what appears to be a rather egregious
> misrepresentation of Lojban, Loglan, and the split between them.
>
> 1 http://specgram.com/CLI.2/02.mlp.html

Of course, since it's a satirical "journal", I'm not sure exactly how
seriously you can take it.

Chris Capel
--
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.