Re: Cognitive distortions and lojban

["Peter L. Schuerman" <plschuerman@UCDAVIS.EDU>]

On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, Logical Language Group wrote:

> >My initially favorable impression of Lojban has changed,
> >and I now regard Lojban as "a computer programming language that you can't
> >even write a program in"  :)
>
> Well, this is a provocative statement!  Could you elaborate?
>
> lojbab

Well, *can* you write a computer program in Lojban?  ;)

One of the reasons I say that it is like a programming language is that
the language essentially has variables, which makes it necessary to store
information in mental "registers".  Like the deletion words, which
"backspace"... an appealing idea, but I'm not convinced that everyone
stores speech as a linear array, so that the "n-1" word is readily
available.  There are other pronouns and pronoun-like words which, while
intriguing, are probably not going to prove useful in conversation because
they require people to conceptualize and store speech like a computer
processes a program.  Another example is the places for each word...
again, perfect for a computer which deals with linear arrays, but I'm not
convinced it is compatible with the way all people think.

There is also a strong emphasis on linear ordering which is reminiscent
of the stepwise processing of computer language.

Also, very small words have very critical meanings, so that small errors
can create huge misunderstandings.  Here's an analogy:
Say that we have three variables, A, B and C.
Here's the function we *want*: A = B - C
Here's the function we mistakenly code: A = B = C

The symbols "-" and "=" are small and very similar, analogous to cmavo in
Lojban.  A very small change, but the two statements have completely
different, and unfortunately completely "grammatical", meanings.  This
compactness of computer code is why it can be difficult to catch crucial
errors, because they appear small and don't create obvious syntax errors.
Compare this with English:

I went to the store to buy some milk.
I went to the store from buy some milk.
I went from the store to buy some milk.
I went and the store to buy some milk.
I went or the store in buy some milk.

These small changes in English "cmavo" create sentences which are either
close enough to understand, peculiar enough to be rejected, or ambiguous
enough to cause a reader to look for more information.  I think that this
feature of natlangs is a powerful one, which has evolved over thousands of
years of usage.  I believe this characteristic maximizes the clarity of
communication when using natlangs.  It is a feature which is very elusive,
but incredibly potent and worth understanding and incorporating into a
conlang if possible.

Now, if a language has the characteristic of being sensitive to small
errors, we not only have the high likelihood of coding errors, but also of
interpretation errors.  I feel Lojban does share this characteristic with
computer code.  I guess that I'm not very enthusiastic about speaking a
language that lends such fragility to meaning.  Who wants to use a
language you have to "debug"?

The answer?  As far as I can tell, people who are extremely comfortable
with computer programming!  Or people who are very much at home with
mathematics and abstract thought.  It can be a lot of fun to take apart
Lojban sentences, the same way it can be fun to try to understand a
computer program or a mathematical equation.  It can also be fun to try to
see how many different ways you can code a sentence into Lojban...  it's
sort of like writing a program, that you "run" on someone else's brain
(the reader/listener).  Lojban can be a very entertaining diversion, but
as long as it is designed to meet the aesthetic needs of math geeks and
closet math geeks, I think it will never move beyond being more than
some sort of complex fraternal code language.

Peter Schuerman                                    plschuerman@ucdavis.edu
                        Co-editor, SPECTRA Online
          for back issues: http://www.well.com/user/phandaal/