Lojban The Logical Language

[Taylor Seraphim]

What's the best weapon in Monster Hunter?

The Charge Blade.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Charge Blade.

Sword and Shield forever.

Though, the real answer is the same here: they're all the best. Languages are functional in the cultures that speak them; hence the understanding among linguists that language and culture are basically the same thing.

Using another game as the example, which is truly the best (in the context of the game, not real life): paper, sissors, or rock? Swordsman, pikeman, or horseman? Fire, Grass, or Water type?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Sword and Shield forever.

Though, the real answer is the same here: they're all the best. Languages are functional in the cultures that speak them; hence the understanding among linguists that language and culture are basically the same thing.

Using another game as the example, which is truly the best (in the context of the game, not real life): paper, sissors, or rock? Swordsman, pikeman, or horseman? Fire, Grass, or Water type?

The problem is that all of these do actually have superiors based on tiny details.

For example, men are statistically more likely to choose rock.

In real life a horseman was still more useful than a pikeman or swordsman.

And fire types have less higher teir Pokémon that can counter them.

 

[Riverwolf]

The problem is that all of these do actually have superiors based on tiny details.

For example, men are statistically more likely to choose rock.

How much of that is based upon cultural expectations placed upon men, to choose the thing perceived to be "strongest"? And how much would that help you get through Alex Kidd in Miracle World?

In real life a horseman was still more useful than a pikeman or swordsman.

Granted; I will admit to minimal knowledge of pre-gunpowder combat intricacies (my experience limited pretty solely to Mount and Blade: Warband), it's something I've heard before and "makes sense". (I THINK on Extra Credits? I'm not sure.)

And fire types have less higher teir Pokémon that can counter them.

I'm not considering such details in my example. Just the typing.

To bring back my analogy to the original topic, if the practical applications based on pre-existing conditions are factors in determining which is "best", then Esperanto is already better than Lojban as a universal language, becuase it's more well-known, has a much wider pool of speakers, and already has several native speakers.

...I wanna ask something. I'm of significant Irish ancestry; my great-great Grandmother came to California from Ireland (possibly Northern Ireland, in fact) nearly a hundred years ago. Even though I practice Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, I still identify fairly strongly with that Irish ancestry. As you may or may not be aware, Irish (or Irish Gaelic if you prefer) is severely endangered, and could become extinct within a century. My question is this: do you understand why this would be such a huge tragedy?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

How much of that is based upon cultural expectations placed upon men, to choose the thing perceived to be "strongest"? And how much would that help you get through Alex Kidd in Miracle World?

Actually is was based on having more aggressiveness which many men tend to have due to higher levels of testosterone.

To bring back my analogy to the original topic, if the practical applications based on pre-existing conditions are factors in determining which is "best", then Esperanto is already better than Lojban as a universal language, becuase it's more well-known, has a much wider pool of speakers, and already has several native speakers.

Well Esperanto cannot be used like Lojam can.

...I wanna ask something. I'm of significant Irish ancestry; my great-great Grandmother came to California from Ireland (possibly Northern Ireland, in fact) nearly a hundred years ago. Even though I practice Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, I still identify fairly strongly with that Irish ancestry. As you may or may not be aware, Irish (or Irish Gaelic if you prefer) is severely endangered, and could become extinct within a century. My question is this: do you understand why this would be such a huge tragedy?

Languages come and go, I understand many people have a cultural attachment to theirs but other than that I do not see the problem.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually is was based on having more aggressiveness which many men tend to have due to higher levels of testosterone.

And yet, is that something inherent, or cultural?

Well Esperanto cannot be used like Lojam can.

So? That doesn't negate my point.

Languages come and go, I understand many people have a cultural attachment to theirs but other than that I do not see the problem.

One reason is, from a linguistics perspective, having a wide pool of languages to study can provide all kinds of insights into how the human brain works. We can even use such insights to determine whether other animals are capable of true language. If that pool shrinks into further homogeneity, opportunity for study shrinks exponentially. We'd be left with huge gaps in our knowledge that can never be reclaimed.

However, a big reason is because language is one of the most defining aspects of cultural identity. When a language is lost, the culture is largely lost as well, merged or assimilated in the conqueror's. (How familiar are you with Irish history?)

I cited Irish because it's the one I'm closest to, but there's far more dire situations in the world. There's estimated to be roughly 6000 languages in the world, and HALF of them are predicted to go extinct in the next century.

A huge chunk of those languages include (not remotely limited to): Cherokee, Navajo, Mohawk, Hawaiian, Inupiaq, Aleut... a full list is here: http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/country/USA That's just the US. We haven't even begun to travel the world.

NOW do you see the problem?

If not, the problem is that virtually all of these endangered languages, and their extinct brethren, are in such states directly because of imperialism and/or colonialism (and to be clear, not always European). Languages "come and go" because the cultures that speak them get conquered and assimilated (if not just slaughtered outright, as happened to the Dacians). To deem them unworthy of preservation, if not full on salvation, is insensitive at best, and downright racist at worst.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sword and Shield forever.

Though, the real answer is the same here: they're all the best. Languages are functional in the cultures that speak them; hence the understanding among linguists that language and culture are basically the same thing.

Excuse me? Is it even conceivable that all are the best?

Maybe you mean to say that most languages tend to adapt and conform to the expectations of their own cultures? That is true far as I can tell, but it also means that they are essentially never the best. In fact, they often actively become worse.

Using another game as the example, which is truly the best (in the context of the game, not real life): paper, sissors, or rock? Swordsman, pikeman, or horseman? Fire, Grass, or Water type?

Those are artificial criteria that were created to enforce a carefully-built symetry of value, though. A living culture will rarely be comparable, and neither will its language.

 

[LuisDantas]

So? That doesn't negate my point.

It seems to me that it actually does. Lojban seems to attempt to fulfill a specific niche that Esperanto may not have even noticed. And while I can hardly claim to be certain, it seems to me that it is an important, perhaps all-out necessary niche to fulfill.

One reason is, from a linguistics perspective, having a wide pool of languages to study can provide all kinds of insights into how the human brain works. We can even use such insights to determine whether other animals are capable of true language. If that pool shrinks into further homogeneity, opportunity for study shrinks exponentially. We'd be left with huge gaps in our knowledge that can never be reclaimed.

That is true, but not necessarily avoidable, and perhaps not at all a bad thing.

However, a big reason is because language is one of the most defining aspects of cultural identity. When a language is lost, the culture is largely lost as well, merged or assimilated in the conqueror's. (How familiar are you with Irish history?)

I cited Irish because it's the one I'm closest to, but there's far more dire situations in the world. There's estimated to be roughly 6000 languages in the world, and HALF of them are predicted to go extinct in the next century.

A huge chunk of those languages include (not remotely limited to): Cherokee, Navajo, Mohawk, Hawaiian, Inupiaq, Aleut... a full list is here: http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/country/USA That's just the US. We haven't even begun to travel the world.

NOW do you see the problem?

I do not. I think you are being a bit too idealistic here.

Each and every generation needs to build itself from the skeletons of the previous one to some degree. Cultures are their own scourges, because they have no choice.

If not, the problem is that virtually all of these endangered languages, and their extinct brethren, are in such states directly because of imperialism and/or colonialism (and to be clear, not always European).

I don't think that is really true, unless you understand that the desire not to emulate one's own forefathers to the last consequence must always be called imperialism or colonialism, or blamed to them somehow.

Languages "come and go" because the cultures that speak them get conquered and assimilated (if not just slaughtered outright, as happened to the Dacians). To deem them unworthy of preservation, if not full on salvation, is insensitive at best, and downright racist at worst.

I respectfully disagree, at least in part.

Languages become extinct because there are not enough people willing and able to learn and use them. At some point you will find languages that are meant to die quietly. Simply put, Earth's resources are finite, including those needed to sustain languages, and not every language can earn its own survival indefinitely - or should.

In a nutshell, cultures can, do and in fact need to essentially commit suicide. And that is how it must be.

 

[Shia Islam]

What are you thoughts on Lojban, and are there any speakers of it here?

It is a constructed language based on logic.

Seeing the trends, and how some languages die and some become intentional languages....One day one language will enforce itself as the language that the whole world speak...

And, BTW, all languages are based on logic to some extent..

 

[Riverwolf]

I do not. I think you are being a bit too idealistic here.
...
In a nutshell, cultures can, do and in fact need to essentially commit suicide. And that is how it must be.

With all due respect, whatever "too idealistic" means to you, it seems to me that you're being the exact opposite. So our viewpoints may not allow for adequate discussion in this regard, because ours seem just too polar opposite for adequate discussion.

I'll still try.

That is how it MUST be? Says who? Frankly, being conquered is FAR more preferable than committing cultural suicide. I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen, it obviously has. But who says it MUST be like that?

In a nutshell... that is how it MUST be? **** that. **** cynical predeterminism. Call me Polyanna or Robinhood-son if ye must.

(That's about as "aggressive" as I get. I have very, very negative experiences with that mode of thinking, hence my attitude. And know that it's in regards to such cynicism in myself; I've no problem with others thinking like that, but don't expect me to adopt it.)

 

[LuisDantas]

With all due respect, whatever "too idealistic" means to you, it seems to me that you're being the exact opposite. So our viewpoints may not allow for adequate discussion in this regard, because ours seem just too polar opposite for adequate discussion.

The history of my life. Except that I am rarely accused of being the non-idealistic one.

I'll still try.

Thanks.

That is how it MUST be? Says who? Frankly, being conquered is FAR more preferable than committing cultural suicide. I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen, it obviously has. But who says it MUST be like that?

Not sure why you are presenting such a choice. Often enough being conquered is or leads to cultural suicide. It sure happened in Brazil more than once.

In a nutshell... that is how it MUST be? **** that. **** cynical predeterminism. Call me Polyanna or Robinhood-son if ye must.

I think I am actually ahead of you in that waiting queue.

(That's about as "aggressive" as I get. I have very, very negative experiences with that mode of thinking, hence my attitude. And know that it's in regards to such cynicism in myself; I've no problem with others thinking like that, but don't expect me to adopt it.)

I don't see any cynicism here, least of all on my own stance. I am honestly doubtful if you even understand my mode of thinking here.

Cultures are living constructs, delicate, unstable and most of all mutable by their very nature. Even the USA of 2008 were largely resigned about the challenges of Same Sex Marriage, while those of 2016 are not.

Cultural trends grow, fork, especialize and subdivide all the time, in part because people breed and establish complex networks of mutual influence, while Earth as a source of resources is finite. So unavoidably various forms of prunning occur naturally.

That happens in biology with natural selection, and in a more anthropological sense as cultures change, trends are born and selected to survive while others linger on and are forgotten. That will and does lead to cultures merging or becoming extinct as well, largely because there just aren't enough people interested in avoiding that.

 

[Riverwolf]

The history of my life. Except that I am rarely accused of being the non-idealistic one.

Thanks.

Not sure why you are presenting such a choice. Often enough being conquered is or leads to cultural suicide. It sure happened in Brazil more than once.

I think I am actually ahead of you in that waiting queue.

I don't see any cynicism here, least of all on my own stance. I am honestly doubtful if you even understand my mode of thinking here.

Judging by your above responses, it would very much seem so.

Cultures are living constructs, delicate, unstable and most of all mutable by their very nature. Even the USA of 2008 were largely resigned about the challenges of Same Sex Marriage, while those of 2016 are not.

Cultural trends grow, fork, especialize and subdivide all the time, in part because people breed and establish complex networks of mutual influence, while Earth as a source of resources is finite. So unavoidably various forms of prunning occur naturally.

That happens in biology with natural selection, and in a more anthropological sense as cultures change, trends are born and selected to survive while others linger on and are forgotten. That will and does lead to cultures merging or becoming extinct as well, largely because there just aren't enough people interested in avoiding that.

Ah. Then what you meant by "committing cultural suicide" is different than what I interpreted. To me, it seemed a cultural equivalent to that movement that advocates personal suicide for the sake of the planet, a stance I have zero patience or respect for. Rather, it seems you're talking about more the leaving behind of an older culture to embrace a new one.

See, that's not something I inherently have a problem with in terms of its occurance. The problem I have is more with the idea that it MUST be that way, as if any other way is inherently "wrong", somehow. Prescriptive, rather than descriptive.

I should also point out that saving cultural heritage is very, very possible. Finnish was saved from being overtaken entirely by Swedish, for example, yet both languages are spoken there. I see this as a wonderful victory for Finnish language and culture. I seriously hope Irish can one day be restored, as well, not to completely oust English, but to exist alongside it in Ireland.

Obviously 100% preservation is not only impossible, it's not desirable. Locking things into pure stasis is just a recipe for stagnation. What I want is basically a multi-lingual world, rather than a world of several strictly mono or bi-lingual cultures.

And to that end, a response to this:

It seems to me that it actually does. Lojban seems to attempt to fulfill a specific niche that Esperanto may not have even noticed. And while I can hardly claim to be certain, it seems to me that it is an important, perhaps all-out necessary niche to fulfill.

After thinking about this through the night, I wholly agree. Lojban can be a VERY useful language, moreso than Esperanto, in the proper niche. That being, logic-heavy circles, such as philosophy, engineering, the sciences, etc. HOWEVER, as a universal language for everyday communication, capable of being spoken by anyone everywhere with full mutual intelligibility, regardless of topic, a language that better reflects everyday human thought and interaction (which frequently has little to nothing to do with logic) is better suited. Despite Esperanto's strong Eurocentrism, it's better set for this simply because it already has native speakers.

And I question whether either would be effective Trade languages...

The real test for whether Lojban can be an everyday language will be if it can be spoken natively at all.

 

[Riverwolf]

A linguistics youtube show I follow recently uploaded this video about constructed languages, and talked a little about Lojban near the end.

I think it's a pretty interesting insight into conlangs in general, and why we make them. His experience of Lojban (which he states is not like speaking a real language, but speaking computer code) is one of the reasons I question its validity as a universal language at all. However, with no experience speaking it myself, I obviously can't vouch for that experience.

 

[1137]

The applications are extremely limited. There are no native speakers, there are fewer speakers than there are of other, more bizarre or fantastical languages like Klingon or Elvish (quenya), there are no serious linguistic treatments of the grammar by professional linguists in academic monographs or reference grammars as there are of e.g., quenya, there are no gains from Lojban compared to those of its predecessor, it has not advanced communication nor contributed to formal languages, it is not readily differentiable in nature from Klingon or a host of other constructed languages (and the central differences result in departures from its logical and universal nature), it runs contrary to human thought and communication, as a formal language it is redundant as there already exists a plethora of actually formal languages (set theory, formal logics, computer programming languages, etc.), the entire program of formalizing natural languages entails stripping language of semantic content and is therefore doomed, the neural and cognitive underpinnings of language run contrary to the foundations of Lojban, and apart from a popular support and a few books the entire project has given us nothing and no indication that it can (particularly when compared with other languages of the same kind). Have you read What is Lobjan? and The Complete Lobjan Language?

May I ask what your degrees are in, besides your PhD in hypothesis destruction? It honestly seems fascinating to me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

May I ask what your degrees are in, besides your PhD in hypothesis destruction?

About Me. My undergrad degrees were Ancient Greek & Latin (BA), Psychology and Sociology (BA), and Cognitive Science (minor). My graduate studies began with and in neuroscience, although that has changed (and my RG profile, linked to above, is not up-to-date).

 

[1137]

About Me. My undergrad degrees were Ancient Greek & Latin (BA), Psychology and Sociology (BA), and Cognitive Science (minor). My graduate studies began with and in neuroscience, although that has changed (and my RG profile, linked to above, is not up-to-date).

Very cool!