Re: Irony and Cultural Neutrality

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-16 09:01, Chris Bogart wrote:

>If you were talking Lojban with a Nepali, it would be to your advantage
>to avoid irony.  If you were talking to someone from an unknown culture,
>it might be safer to avoid it as well.  Yes, it would feel constraining.
> Dealing with people from other cultures can be stressful.

I quite agree. But talking to Nepalis is only one application of Lojban.

>I wouldn't hesitate to use irony speaking Lojban with someone I knew
>could understand it, but it seems reasonable to me to have direct,
>unironic, unmetaphorical exposition as the theoretical ideal, for a
>langauge that aspires to provide a means of communication that's biased
>towards what we call "logic", and which hopes to allow communication
>with computers.

I agree, but this ideal is (to me, at least) a matter of 'recommended
use', and something easily separable from the grammar of the language.

>I don't see why it matters if that verges on javni
>rather than gerna -- after all, I'm capable of following either type of
>rule if I want to.

Not quite true. One can follow javni directly, since they simply say 'do
this'. But gerna-rules (grammar) constrain sentences, not human
behaviour. Of course, one can create a javni that constrains people only
to speak sentences that follow a particular grammar, and then follow that
javni. But at this point the question arises as to whether Lojban is
essentially a language as a map between text and meaning (gerna, but
including meaning), with secondary notes as to recommended use, or rules
defining a community (javni), mandating a particular use of a language.


--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/