Irony: Necessity of Non-Verbal Communication with Lojban

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

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

...
>>I agree that Lojban should be capable of expressing anything otherwise
>>non-verbal (though it is difficult to use only Lojban to point to
>>something)
>
>The imaginary journey tense system helps to some extent here.

But if I have a thousand identical objects in a big heap, and I wish to
refer to a particular one with {ti}, typically my only practical choice
is to physically point to it -- a long string of VA and FAhA cmavo isn't
going to cut it. Now this is non-verbal communication so presumably not
itself Lojban. If I speak Lojban while employing this form of non-Lojban
communication, am I not still speaking Lojban (albeit while doing
something else simultaneously)?


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