More on lojban & language

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Chris [who is having some problems in marking quotes as quotes]:
> And writes:
>
> There are many different competing and in some cases equally
> valid definitions of what counts as language, or as a language.
>
> Do any of them include metonymy?

Yes. A broad definition that seeks to account for all aspects
of language use. But I don't think that a designed/designable
language is a language by such a definition.

> But only by one of these definitions (a set of rules generating
> sentences (sound-meaning pairings)) is a language *designable*.
>
> Would inventing a rule that said "do not use metonymy" constitute language
>  design, using a definition of language which includes metonymy?

I wouldn't call it language design. Maybe "speech-community design",
or something like that. We could form some kind of community
with at least the following rules of behaviour:

  1. Use sentences generated by the rules of Lojban grammar.
  2. Do not use metonymy.

Lojban (in a Lojbabian sense) would then be a mode of behaviour.

--And