Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating

From: Peter Jones (ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 25 2001 - 14:04:57 PDT

  • Next message: Peter Jones: "Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating"

    I had some time, so I thought I would actually read about Loglan properly.
    Where better to start than the introduction on the Web by James Cooke Brown
    himself
    http://www.loglan.org/Loglan1/index.html#toc

    Some excerpts (quite a large number actually) :

    From section 1.2 onward:
    "Loglan is logical only in the sense of purporting to facilitate certain
    limited kinds of thought: namely those kinds which proceed by the
    transformation of sentences into other sentences in such a way that if the
    first are true so also are the second. "

    "...and last, and most tellingly, perhaps, (iv) a word-classification scheme
    that (a) allows all claims to be expressed in the predicate calculus and (b)
    treats all predicates indiscriminately except as they are distinguished by
    the number of their places. This means that Loglan has no nouns, verbs,
    adverbs or adjectives in any ordinary sense, but only predicates and
    multi-place ones as required. Now this, among all the ploys adopted by
    logicians, is perhaps the most far-reaching in its implications for language
    structure. I suspect it will turn out also to be the most troubling, and yet
    ultimately the most freeing, feature of Loglan grammar for the
    English-thinking mind. It is also what makes Loglan processable by
    machines."

    "The logically-trained reader will have observed that this list of essential
    transformation structures is not only a short one, but far less ambitious
    than it might have been. There is no notational provision in Loglan, for
    example, for a theory of types...or for any other scheme for removing the
    paradoxes to which the absence of a hierarchical notation quickly leads.
    Moreover, the notational provisions for a class calculus are rudimentary. So
    Loglan in its present form is less than an ideal vehicle for "speaking
    symbolic logic." "

    "But its original purpose was to guarantee the metaphysical14 neutrality of
    the language for speakers of widely different native tongues. Thus any
    speaker, from any culture, should find it possible to regularly express in
    Loglan what he takes for granted about the world; and he will be able to do
    this without imposing--or what is perhaps more to the point, without being
    able to impose--these assumptions on his auditor. "

    "Still another element of Loglan's cultural neutrality reflects its intended
    use in cross-cultural experiments and possibly also as a medium of
    international translation. To this end I have tried to make the sounds of
    the basic words of the language equitably familiar to persons of very
    different language backgrounds. Its sounds and word-roots, for example, have
    been drawn with strict impartiality from the eight most widely spoken
    tongues. Of these eight, three are Oriental: Hindi, Japanese and the
    Mandarin dialect of Chinese. The other five are more likely to be familiar
    to readers of this book: English, Spanish, Russian, French and German. In
    this phonological sense Loglan is ready to be used as a "world language;"
    speakers of these eight languages comprise well over three-quarters of the
    present population of the earth. What is more germane, native speakers of
    any of these eight source languages will be able to hear many clues to
    meaning in Loglan speech. So cross-cultural comparisons of the results of
    learning Loglan as a second language will be possible across a broad range
    of native languages."

    "A fourth instrumental property of Loglan bears on a functional relationship
    between languages that I hesitatingly call accommodation. We want the
    language to be small; yet we also want it to be very large. We want it to be
    large in the specific semantic sense of accommodating all that we might wish
    to say in it, either in response to urgencies developed within the language
    or because of those prior semantic urgencies that originate in the fact that
    we already speak other languages. We want, in short, to be able to speak
    Loglan not only like a Loglander, but also like a Trobriander or an
    Englishman, a Frenchman or a Chinese. This is a large order, and I am
    perfectly certain that I have not satisfied it. Yet the very effort to
    satisfy such a grand criterion has proved rewarding. More than any other
    functional property of the language, the installation of this one, even
    incompletely, has involved years of work. And the work is incomplete. It is
    on this point more than any other that I expect to be informed by the
    publication of even a fourth edition of this volume of the extent to which
    the grammar of Loglan does not permit the expression of meanings to which
    its speakers find themselves driven...whether, as I say, because of impulses
    generated within the language or from semantical needs coming from outside."

    "Above all I have come to realize that while a new language may liberate
    inventiveness in surprising ways, no language forces anything but its
    obligatory grammatical arrangements on its speakers.[26]

    Not even clarity. Clarity is there in Loglan if you wish it. And clarity is
    genuinely more available to the speaker of Loglan than of other languages.
    If you want to be clear in Loglan, you will not, for example, be tripped up
    by the massive, and largely unnoticed, ambiguity of your mother tongue,
    which I presume is English. But in Loglan, as in other languages, one is not
    obliged to be clear.

    Can one, in Loglan, be unclear? Of course."

    "In these last ten years of engineering optionalities into Loglan I have
    formed a view of language which I suspect is very different from the one
    with which I began. I see language now as something very like a
    sign-painter's kit: a box of brushes, paints, templates and other tools
    which each of us carries about. With one's own personal sign-painter's
    kit--one's personal collection of English sign-parts, say--one constructs
    one's signs...in the air. One speaks English. Others similarly equipped with
    English sign-making tools, and so familiar with their use, listen to you and
    attempt to decode your signs. If you have labored well, if you have
    constructed your sign intelligently and taken carefully into account how
    those particular others are likely to interpret your efforts, your sign may
    very well succeed in doing what you wanted it to do: it may sing of your
    intentions to them. If not, it won't; and you may never know that you have
    failed."

    "But the point is that no part of that machinery ever has to be used. We all
    know people who have never said--and in the remainder of their lives will
    never say--that something is A "if and only if" it is also B. That
    particular shade of logical English lies unused in their sign kits. It is
    there. Each of the words is there. Even the usage is there in the kits of
    other modern English speakers to be understood and copied if they choose to.
    But they don't choose to. Nothing except a stern schoolmaster could force
    them to."

    "I have been making the tacit assumption all along in this section that
    Sapir and Whorf will turn out to be in some sense right, that Loglan will
    have a special mind-expanding contribution to make as the international
    auxiliary. But suppose Sapir and Whorf are not right? Suppose particular
    languages do not set limits on human thought? Then it hardly matters what
    language our children choose for our grandchildren to talk in when they
    travel. Thought is; and thought will be. For the commanding alternative
    hypothesis is that the forms of reason are, as Kant surmised, among the
    biological givens of the human animal.27 In that case, such incidental
    features of a language as whether it is easily learned or not, or speakable
    by and to computers, or useful in translation, might well turn out to be
    decisive. So, ironically, Loglan may turn out to be the preferred
    alternative after all...even if the hypothesis that led to its construction
    is refuted."

    I can recommend reading this chapter in full.

    Cheers,
    Peter

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com>
    To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:42 PM
    Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating

    > Interesting question. Jeff Conklin once observed that there are
    > 5 kinds of questions that get raised in a discussion about an
    > issue. (Or maybe it was 7.) The one that stuck in mind was,
    > "What does that mean?"
    >
    > I took that to mean, "what does it mean if we do X?". In other
    > words, what does that make us?
    >
    > Another type of question was, "what are the implications of that
    > decision?"
    >
    > Jeff's experience is based on moderating discussions of this kind,
    > so I'm sure that the opened-spirit of the method has engenered a
    > lot of moral/ethical thinking.
    >
    > As to the efficacy of Loglan for such discussions, I really
    > couldn't say, at the moment. But the notion thats that "X is
    > good", "we want X", would seem to be expressible any language
    > worthy of the name, although we may not have 10,000 shades of
    > desirability, from "that would seem to be sort of potentially
    > desirable, in some circumstances, I believe" to "WE MUST HAVE
    > THAT AT ALL COSTS".
    >
    > Peter Jones wrote:
    > >
    > > Eric wrote:
    > > > Now, from the standpoint of ordinary communications, I admit that
    > > > sounds like a defect. But from the standpoint of carrying out an
    > > > IBIS-style online discussion of an issue, the restriction to
    > > > emotionally-neutral expression is very likely to be a positive
    > > > thing, especially in light of...
    > >
    > > Perhaps. But to dispute this point would get us into an enormous
    > > discussion
    > > of as yet unresolved issues with moral theories.
    > > For instance, many believe that it is impossible to be ethical without
    > > some
    > > intuitive sense of care, and that care is not a logical term in the
    > > human
    > > psyche.
    > >
    > > I would like to hear from anyone who has attempted to discuss an
    > > important
    > > ethical issue IBIS-style. Or even, if anyone believes they have
    > > successfully
    > > resolved an
    > > ethical issue in IBIS discussion, it would be interesting to analyse
    > > the
    > > discussion for
    > > presumed terms not explicit in the discussion transcript.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com>
    > > To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    > > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 12:01 AM
    > > Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating
    > >
    > > > Jack Park wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > That work began the evolution of the language Loglan
    > > > > http://www.loglan.org
    > > > >
    > > > Thanks for the pointer, Jack.
    > > > I've always loved computer languages, as well as propositional
    > > > calculus and related algebras. I've had a linguistic bent for
    > > > years, too, but there are too many exceptions to memorize in
    > > > most languages.
    > > >
    > > > Sanskrit and Amayara (sp?) appear to be outstanding exceptions,
    > > > but there isn't much call for those. This one, aimed at being
    > > > a "LOGical LANguage", or "LOGician's LANguage", appears quite
    > > > interesting.
    > > >
    > > > "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > One aspect of the language that intrigued me is that the
    > > > > dictionary consists of predicates, each of which takes a
    > > > > specified set of arguments -- essentially subroutines or
    > > > > method calls.
    > > > >
    > > > Fascinating.
    > > >
    > > > Jack Park wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > I am thinking that Loglan, or perhaps some future derivative
    > > > > of it, could form the seeds of a rather potent language for
    > > > > online discussions.
    > > > >
    > > > I think so, too. Partly because of the logical nature of the
    > > > language, but especially in light of...
    > > >
    > > > Peter Jones wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > I seem to remember a post on a newsgroup about the difficulties
    > > > > of expressing statements with emotional content in Loglan, and
    > > > > about how that impoverished communication.
    > > > >
    > > > Now, from the standpoint of ordinary communications, I admit that
    > > > sounds like a defect. But from the standpoint of carrying out an
    > > > IBIS-style online discussion of an issue, the restriction to
    > > > emotionally-neutral expression is very likely to be a positive
    > > > thing, especially in light of...
    > > >
    > > > Jack Park wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > From
    > > http://www.css.sfu.ca/update/vol6/6.3-trouble-in-paradise.html
    > > > >
    > > > > "Without facial expressions, voice intonations, or
    > > > > gestures, relationships can be strange; jokes and irony can lead
    > > to
    > > > > misunderstandings. The distancing safety of the medium can promote
    > > > > casual inflammatory and hurtful remarks.
    > > >
    > > > A language that lent itself to more dispassionate analysis might
    > > > be exactly the ticket to counter-balance the effects of distance
    > > > on communication!
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Community email addresses:
    > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > > >
    > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > > >
    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
    > > [Image]
    > >
    > >
    > > Community email addresses:
    > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > >
    > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > >
    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    >
    >
    > Community email addresses:
    > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    >
    > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    >
    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    >
    >
    >

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Get VeriSign's FREE GUIDE: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Learn about using SSL for serious online security. Click Here!
    http://us.click.yahoo.com/KYe3qC/I56CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:
      http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Aug 25 2001 - 13:56:38 PDT