Re: The design of Lojban

["Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>]

> [Some musing about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, including the idea
> that it can be tested not only by having a language as free as
> possible of restrictions, but also by having specific ones.]

Yes, it's actually the restrictions that are more interesting to study,
and that have been the subject of much study in existing languages.
Most such studies don't support the strong SWH, but a few (like the
color names study) may support the weaker notion that language does have
some effect on thought/perception, if not limiting it.

> Also, some specifics of Lojban:
> In English, "or" can mean either inclusive-or (and/or) or exclusive-or
> (either-or).  Is there an unambiguous separation of the two
> interpretations in Lojban?

Not only is there that separation, but every other logical operation
one can imagine, and some I can't.

> In English, relationships are represented by (or are at least ambiguous
> with) ownership.  "My sister's husband" implies that my sister owns her
> husband, and also that I own my sister.  In Lojban is there a way to
> make references to relationship without implying ownership?

Yes.  {le mi mensi} means "the sister somehow associated with me", not
"the sister owned by me".  In this case, the association is clear from
context.  In others, e.g. {le mi karce},  it is less clear, and ownership
will probably be a default assumption without further context, but the
language is clear that it doesn't specify that.  Certainly even some
cases where ownership is possible another relationship makes more sense:
{le mi zdani} is probably the house I live in, whether I own it or not.
If you want to clearly state ownership, you can with {poi mi ponse...},
and you can state other associations as well.

> I assume that Lojban has gender-neutral "pronouns."  Does it also have
> gender-specific ones, or must gender be specified only by using a
> gender-neutral one and then using a separate, explicit modifier to
> specify gender?

Not only does it have no gender-specific pronouns, it has no human-
specific ones.  If you want to point to a man and say he's large, you
say {ta bardu}, exactly the same thing you'd say pointing to a large
house.  That's one reason why there are "series" of pronouns, so that
you can have two or three pronouns expressly assigned referents for
a coversation.  But any of them can be assigned to any referent.

> However, how are we ever to convince the Eskimos of Greenland to learn
> Lojban?  They use base 20.  (We can ignore the Babylonians, who used
> base 60, because they're all dead.  No hard feelings.)  Also, are there
> any _symbols_ beyond 0, 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 ?
> [also comment on using H for ']

Wasn't aware of a base-20 culture.  They are indeed out of luck, unless
they use subscripted digits or something (awkward, but still possible
within Lojban).  No, there are no digit symbols for the hex digits A-F.
In written text, numbers are generally spelled out in roman letters--
each digit is only two letters.  But since Arabic numerals will likely
continue to be used in other contexts, Arabic-style digits might be an
interesting idea.

Orthography is really a separate issue from the "language" itself.
One could write Lojban in other ways--If I had all the money and time
at my disposal, I might develop a gestural form and ideographic form
of Lojban.  If you want to use Hs, use them; it just makes it a little
harder to explain that "cehu" is really one syllable sometimes, etc.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC