Non-figurative lojban as a "style"

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

I propose that rather than worry about figurative Lojban too much we =
simply coin some english or lojban terms for two different lojban =
"styles" -- one allowing things like unmarked irony, metonymy, allegory, =
etc., and one not.  (There's probably a better linguistic term for this =
-- mode? register? mood? dialect? pragmalect?) =20

And et al are probably right (the little red riding hood example =
convinced me) that it would be either futile or boring to try to ban =
these things in normal situations among the human lojban speech =
community; on the other hand, deliberately culling them from one's =
speech or writing will likely be useful when experimenting with software =
that tries to process Lojban semantically. =20

Another reason the non-figurative style is useful is for learning the =
language.  You're more likely to have to exercize your skills in =
different language features if you try to say things literally, than if =
you throw a few suggestive sumti in random order around a suggestive =
selbri, and let the listener prag it all together in the obvious way.  =
Lojban with pragmatics, among learners, risks devolving into exactly the =
situation that And criticized in a previous thread where being =
understood (by another speaker with the same cultural background and =
native language, probably) is the only criterion of success.

Lojbab's non-figurative style of Lojban reminds me of the way characters =
in Star Trek (in all it's zillion incarnations) talk to the computers.  =
I don't know how consistent the writers have been, but the computers =
supposedly only understand requests when they are phrased in a very =
direct, logical manner.  That would seem reasonable to me as an =
intermediate step towards true computer language usage, but I hope we're =
further along than that when lo 23rd century rolls around.

Chris