Papoon
Active Member
Wow. You're the man who knows what words ACTUALLY mean !
I'd keep that to myself if I were you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lojban The Logical Language
- Thread starter Taylor Seraphim
- Start date
Wow. You're the man who knows what words ACTUALLY mean !
I'd keep that to myself if I were you.
Papoon
Active Member
Papoon
Active Member
The universe.
It boggles my mind.
What's logjam for boggles ?
I mean, apart from being a great name for a post-911 rock band.
"Fine Doubt is the latest drop from Logjam for Boggles...."
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
No I just really do not feel like trying to explain someone the psychology of language as it is very long and complex and I doubt it would be appreciated.
Papoon
Active Member
And it was made illegal in 1966.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I am always willing to appreciate information. I would not have asked had I not wanted to know. @LegionOnomaMoi Did answer though, in a simplified answer. If you have more to add I would certainly appreciate it.
And I find it curious that you assume otherwise. Why do you think I would not appreciate it? Was it the wording of the question?
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
No just the attitude of the people in the forum in general, plus that area of psychology I am not the best in.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Fair enough. But I did not intend the question as rhetorical. I thought I worded it so that was apparent. I am genuinely interested, and would like to understand.
If your experience of people is that they are not interested, then I can safely say that I do not follow such inclinations. I prefer understanding, and while I certainly challenge people from time to time, even that is an attempt to understand their concepts.
Papoon
Active Member
Well said. I also feel that way .
And this also highlights the kind of limitations inherent in 'logical' forms of communication.
This is why I have made the kind of lateral remarks I often feel compelled to make. They are not dismissal or sarcasm, they are an attempt to respond authentically,
Well meaning animadversion as opposed to floccinaucinihilipilification.
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Abstracts concepts can indeed by logically explained though it can be difficult for the average person to do so.
Or for logicians to do so. Because the entire point of formal systems or formal languages like propositional or predicate logic (and fuzzy logic, modal logic, etc.) is to enable us to analyze the structural/syntactic nature of an argument. Hence logical symbols. Logical systems allow us to reduce arguments to a series of meaningless symbols in order to determine their validity. Logic alone cannot determine soundness.
Lojban would be ultimately be defeated by.....
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160211-the-secret-anti-languages-youre-not-supposed-to-know
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160211-the-secret-anti-languages-youre-not-supposed-to-know
Papoon
Active Member
For whatever reason this reminded me of Robert Sheckley's short story 'Shall we have a little talk ?'
Find the story if you can, meanwhile here is most of the story with some commentary -
http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2006/09/shall_we_have_a.html
That is one difficult read!
Papoon
Active Member
No, it just seems that way.
Seriously though, broken into sections, with commentary, on a web page, is very different to reading the story in a book. It is actually quite simple and very funny. The punchline is killer.
vaguelyhumanoid
Active Member
I used to be interested in Lojban but it's so gawky-sounding and the contrarian terms for parts of speech (like brivla and cmene or what have you) annoy me. I like the attitudinals tho. When it comes to unwieldy rationalistic conceptual languages, I prefer Ithkuil anyways. Go hard or go home.
I love the idea. I feel that people tend to grossly underestimate the disadvantages of our heavily context-reliant languages and the toll they take on our ability to understand each other.
I like the idea of calling it a "nerd toy". :3
"Culturally neutral" seems an impossible task, because language and culture are basically the same thing. Constructing a language inherently means constructing a culture to speak it. However, that's probably just a semantic nitpick, as their description of the goal of "cultually neutral" simply seemed to refer to "neutral in terms of existent cultures". And YES YES YES, NO GRAMMATICAL GENDER!! I HATE grammatical gender!!
Okay, I LOVE this idea of incorporating ways to express attitude and emotion directly into the language. English, as the Internet Language, SERIOUSLY needs something like that. (Thankfully, emoji and emoticons seem to be set to fill that role.)
It does sound pretty cool. Far better suited to being universal than the Eurocentric Esperanto. I might give it a learn at some point.
This hilarious Japanese phrase cannot truly be translated into English:
ORE WA ONNA!
(Hint: "I am female" is not a complete translation).
How would it fair in Lojban?
You forget that English is polydialectical, and a huge chunk of its words are polysemic.
Note this: I didn't check to see if "polydialectical" is in any dictionary, but its meaning should be perfectly clear.
Last edited:
What's the best weapon in Monster Hunter?