Re: Irony and Cultural Neutrality

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-28 01:20, Logical Language Group wrote:

>>All I expect
>>of Lojban is that it enable the communication of the face-value meaning:
>>why should Lojban care if that meaning has itself some further
>>significance?
>
>Lojban has nothing to say about an individual finding deeper significance in
>a proposition than its face value meaning.  BUT you are trying to communicate
>a deeper significance - probably a specific deeper significance in fact.
>It is the fact that you are trying to comnmunicate something that puts you
>under the realm of language and its rules.

True, but only under the realm of the language that is expressing the
meaning. In the case of the face-value meaning, that's Lojban, and the
face-value meaning follows those rules. In the case of the deeper
meaning, it's _not_ Lojban, but a 'language of allegory'. The fact that I
am communicating the deeper meaning in a language other than Lojban does
not change the fact that I am communicating the face-value meaning in
Lojban.

Of course that face-value meaning will typically be false, and I will be
aware of that -- see below.

You(?) seem to be making the distinction between face-value and deeper
meaning yourself in the Lojban Brochure:

     This precision in no way confines the meaning of a Lojban
     sentence. It is possible to be fanciful or ridiculous, to
     tell a lie, or to be misunderstood.        You can be very
     specific, or you can be    intentionally vague.    Your hearer
     may        not understand what you meant, but will always
     understand what you said.

Here, 'what you said', seems to refer to face-value meaning, and 'what
you     meant' seems to refer to deeper meaning. At the time you wrote this,
were you thinking of _marked_ fancy and ridiculousness? Arguably, if you
point out the ridiculousness, you're no longer being ridiculous.

>>Bear in mind that in the case of allegory, there may not
>>even be any consensus as to exactly what that deeper meaning is, so it's
>>not simply a matter of using language to communicate that deeper meaning.
>
>If the speaker intends the allegory, then the speaker is trying to
>communicate something, and should mark the allegorical intent.  This does
>not mean that the listener will necessarily agree with the significance, but
>it is the intent that needs to be communicated.

The speaker may choose not to communicate that intent, and may assume
it's obvious from context. Are you aware that there are examples of
unmarked allegory and other unmarked deviations from literalism in
<ftp://ftp.access.digex.net/pub/access/lojbab/texts/>?

For instance:

a) 'aesop', which contains translations of some of Aesop's fables, which
are obviously allegorical, yet apparently this allegory is not marked in
the Lojban,
b) 'beowulf', which contains a translation of some of _Beowulf_, which
simply consists of a series of bridi which are not known to be true by
the person (John Cowan) who wrote them.

Are these Lojban communications? If not, should they not be corrected?

>>And what if a speaker simply wishes to deceive? Are they then not
>>speaking Lojban?
>
>Other than the attitudinals, this is dealt with truth-fuinctionally.  Since
>attitudinals have no truth value, they cannot be false.  I would choose to
>think that a speaker whose attitudinals do not express feelings is merely
>an incoompetent speaker of the language.  So I guess that means yes.

Actually, I'm more interested in bridi at this point.

Consider:

a) I say a bridi that is true, and I believe to be true;
b) I say a bridi that is false, but I mistakenly believe to be true;
c) I say a bridi that is false, and I believe to be false (with intent to
deceive);
d) I say a bridi that is false, and I believe to be false (but with no
intent to deceive);
e) I say a bridi that is true, but I mistakenly believe to be false (with
intent to deceive);
f) I say a bridi that is true, but I mistakenly believe to be false (but
with no intent to deceive);
g) I say a bridi that is true, but I have no idea whether or not it is
true (with intent to convince);
h) I say a bridi that is true, but I have no idea whether or not it is
true (but with no intent to convince);
i) I say a bridi that is false, but I have no idea whether or not it is
true (with intent to convince);
j) I say a bridi that is false, but I have no idea whether or not it is
true (but with no intent to convince).

In your opinion, in which am I lying? And in which am I communicating in
Lojban?

Quick summary:
a) +true +believe
b) -true +believe
c) -true -believe +convince
d) -true -believe -convince
e) +true -believe +convince
f) +true -believe -convince
g) +true ?believe +convince
h) +true ?believe -convince
i) -true ?believe +convince
j) -true ?believe -convince

true: the bridi is true
believe: I believe the bridi
convince: I intend to convince the listener of the bridi

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