Re: Linguistics journals

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, And Rosta wrote:

> gEOff:
> > Belknap:
> > > >By the way, has lojban central managed to get any reviews by the
 mainstream
> > > >press, linguistics journals, or logic journals?
> >
> > Lojbab:
> > > No we have not
> >
> > Why not? Isn't anyone interested in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
>
> yES, though not in the mainsteam, but i DON'T think Lojban would
> present a sufficiently focused basis for experiment.

In what ways? It seems to me that if Lojban really is intended to test the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, then this kind of feedback should be important.
>
> I myself can think of hardly any ways in which Lojban might
> legitimately be discussed in lx journals.

Fairly shattering. In what ways is it not relevant?

> Good psycholinguistic
> data on processing of things with and without terminators (i.e.
> natlangy and nonnatlangy structures) might be interesting.

Is that because terminators are so unnatural? Terminators are one of the
most irritating features of the language, IMHO, and the easiest to get
wrong. In fact, it's interesting to note that a common cause of initial
syntax errors with computer programs is in forgetting to close brackets in
an expression, just as a common cause of syntax errors in Lojban
is in forgetting a non-elidable terminator. There's a lesson to be learned
there, I'm sure...
 >
> If someone came to me wanting to do a dissertation on Lojban,
> and didn't mind being taken for a loony or not increasing their
> emplyability, then I'd encourage them to do one, but only if
> it was essentially a work falling within the domain of Cultural
> Studies: that is, Lojban as a creation, rather than as a language.

And what form would that take in the domain of Cultural Studies? 'Gee,
look what some loonies have actually bothered to think up...,' etc.?

> Same goes for all other invented lgs.

Invented languages are not worthy of study in linguistics? Is this
because they don't pass a test of useability that is found in speaker
viability? For if so, then Esperanto might merit some study. (Not that I'd
want to undertake it, but anyway...)

What you say is interesting. I'd just like you to elaborate on it a little
bit.

Geoff