try this again: Re: Irony and Cultural Neutrality

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>In the case of the deeper
>meaning, it's _not_ Lojban, but a 'language of allegory'.

Any language of allegory depends on a common language/culture to refer
to.  A Lojban user who assumes non-Lojbanic cultural knowledge is taking
risks.  Especially if he does not mark that heis going outside the
languqge norm.

>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.

Why not?  First of all, the marking need not be specific.  You can mark
your whole discourse as being allegorical for all I care - in which case
I have to figure out what deeper meaning you intend with hardly a clue.
But it is still at least marked as figurative.

In Lojban, marking your ridiculouslness does not make it any less
ridiculous.  Even in English, one can explicitly make fun of oneself to
great hilarity.  In any event, MOST English humor including irony, in
SPEECH *IS MARKED* in temrs of changes in tonbe of voice, body language
etc.  There are people who can deliver straight lines without showing
it, but most do show it in some way.

>>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/>?


I'm sure.

>
>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.

Translations from another language would generally be marked as
translations.  There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and no
one can know what allegories, marked or unmarked might exist.  Marking
something as a translation and hence a form of indirect speech in my
opinion is sufficient to mark a text.

That Cowan does not know the bridi to be true does not require marking
(though he might do so).  This is different from knowing that a bridi is
false and explicitly means other than what is stated.

Both Beowolf and Aesop fall under marking with "ka'u" - I know
culturally which includes myth and folklore.

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


That is up to the author translators.  We have no language police.

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

In English, "lying" means telling a known untruth with intent to
deceive.  Some might include telling something not known to be true with
intent to deceive that one actually knows it.

In Lojban, I would presume that lying is telling a known untruth without
marking it in one of the various ways of indicating nonstandard
truthfunction- ality, in order to deceive.  Probably one would therefore
assume that any of the intent-to-decieve examples is lying, although one
could play lots of games (indicate deception via attitudinal, but then
tell a different falsehood than that which the listner might expect-
this I would accept because you have at least marked the communication
as deviant.

But I would not call it cooperative communication unless the listener is
in the mood for a puzzle.

In anyof them in which the listener does not understand what the speaker
intended, then the speaker has not communicated in Lojban.  He may have
spoken grammatical Lojban words and sentences, but he has not
communicated if the speaker does not understand correctly.  This would
in my mind include the listener understanding when an attempt to decieve
is embedded in the text, thoiugh I am ambivalent on whether the listener
needs to know what the truth behind the deception is in order for
communication to be successful.


As a potential Lojban listener who is probne to being literal minded in
English already, I would cease to have interest in communications from
someone who made a habit of unmarked deception.  I have enoiugh problems
as it is with Lojban errors by people TRYING to communicate CORRECTLY to
waste my time on a communication that might end up being intentionally
false and unmarked as such.  I got better things to do than listen to
lies (I have two kids who tell enough lies as it is without seeking out
more).

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.