Irony: {gerna}- & {javni}- Rules in the Language Definition

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-14 10:12, Logical Language Group wrote:

>>>The rules of the language are that the attitudinals are supposed to
represent
>>>true emotional expression and therefore should match body language.
>>
>>That's not a language rule. That's an extra-linguistic cultural rule.
>
>It is a language rule if we want it to be a language rule.  Language
>rules include how and when to use language.

I think you're confusing two different senses of the word 'rule': as
grammar or definition
{gerna}, and as constraints on human behaviour {javni}. Now the refgram
is full of _loi gerna_, which by nature relate to abstract structure, and
this is what is normally meant 'rules of language'. But a rule that
insists that attitudinals must match body language, is a rule in the
sense of {javni}, an almost unconnected meaning of 'rule'.

An example of a {gerna}-rule:

    In Lojban, each selbri has a specified number and type of arguments,
    known collectively as its ``place structure''.

An example of a {javni}-rule:

    Thou shalt not steal.

...
>I have said before that an underlying assumption of Lojban pragmatics is
>that it is the speaker's obligation to make himself clear to the
>listener.  This is a different pragmatic than for English and perhaps
>other languages, where the speaker can do whatever the heck he wants and
>it is the listener's job to figure it out.

I don't think pragmatics are designable: surely they're to be discovered
practically? Otherwise, in what sense are they pragmatic?


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