Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-14 18:41, And Rosta wrote:

>There are many different competing and in some cases equally
>valid definitions of what counts as language, or as a language.
>But only by one of these definitions (a set of rules generating
>sentences (sound-meaning pairings)) is a language *designable*.
>Since Lojban is a designed language, it is therefore a language
>in the sense that it is a set of rules generating sentences.
>
>Now I do concede that there could be a different project, where
>we come together and form some kind of community and agree to
>interact with one another in certain ways, e.g. practising
>free love, not raiding someone else's stash, not using metaphor,
>and so on, but the product of this project would be a
>community, not a language. There's nothing wrong with this
>project, but it is not the same thing as Lojban.

This says it better than I could. I consider a language to be a loose
mapping between behaviour and meaning, which is perhaps slightly broader
than your sense. But I think Lojbab considers Lojban to be a set of
constraints on behaviour, such that any given behaviour is or is not
'communicating in Lojban'. As such, I don't think it could reasonably be
described as 'a language', but instead belongs in the same category, as
you say, with practising free love, not raiding someone else's stash etc.
Also, such constraints on behaviour are culture, and therefore by
definition not culturally neutral.


--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/