MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D014ACDCB5974C32A7C1D3D011A0E389@gmail.com>
References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com>
 <CAP=UV6rFA6e3bF=mDFBoDSKqo_kxMsh5xWuVbpSe94VhL2Li0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de>
 <CAO1AUJPR_A0MtGUTjdTV0mYcFNY6sY12Ln0z3RPTYygdZEOodA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D014ACDCB5974C32A7C1D3D011A0E389@gmail.com>
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:58:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJPBgGc44EPyuXRUvDVg=EoiGAsTENjqz=6h=Hqy6b3dMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software,
 running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", 
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview: 2015-01-20 2:08 GMT+09:00 And Rosta : > > On 19 Jan 2015
 16:52, 
 "guskant" wrote: >> A language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated
 by a >> grammar, > > I think this is untrue. It's unclear what symbols are
 or whether grammar > contains them, but grammar doesn't primarily regulate
 symbols; nor is there > any x such that a language consists of only sequences
 of x. (I'm open to > bring persuaded otherwise, mind.) > > This is all of
 no relevance to the present discussion,
 but in the larger > picture of loglanging
 the question of what a language is (and how known > languages work) is very
 important. > > --And. > [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
 See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
 for more information. [URIs: dropbox.com]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
 [209.85.218.42 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 (gusni.kantu[at]gmail.com)
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few
 jbovlaste entries
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

2015-01-20 2:08 GMT+09:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>
> On 19 Jan 2015 16:52, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated by a
>> grammar,
>
> I think this is untrue. It's unclear what symbols are or whether grammar
> contains them, but grammar doesn't primarily regulate symbols; nor is there
> any x such that a language consists of only sequences of x. (I'm open to
> bring persuaded otherwise, mind.)
>
> This is all of no relevance to the present discussion, but in the larger
> picture of loglanging the question of what a language is (and how known
> languages work) is very important.
>
> --And.
>

My usage of the term "language" conforms to the definition of the term
in model theory:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FormalLanguage.html

I don't know if the definition can be applied to all the other
contexts, but I think there is no problem in adhering to such a
definition in the current context.


2015-01-20 2:03 GMT+09:00 John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>:
> guskant scripsit:
>
>> A language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated by
>> a grammar, but the universe expressed by a language depends on
>> definitions of words. As long as the words of a language are defined
>> by another language, the universe is restricted to that can be
>> expressed by the language used for the definitions.
>
> While I support the idea of Lojban definitions, there is no evidence
> that there is anything that one language can express that another cannot
> (and this is not the SWH), modulo the addition of sufficient vocabulary.
>
>> I think the universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the
>> other languages.
>
> There is nothing to liberate.
>

My definition of the term "language", which is described on the
webpage at the url above, seems more strict than yours. In my
definition, A language is a subset of sequences of symbols. If you
make any modification to the subset, it forms another language. Two
different subsets (languages) may have different or isomorphic models.
A "universe" I meant is a set on which a model is constructed. If each
of languages P and Q has a model, and if the words of P are defined by
Q, then the definitions fix a mapping from a universe of a model of Q
to a universe of a model of P. If words of P are not defined by Q,
such a mapping is not fixed. That is what I meant by the word
"liberated".


2015-01-20 2:16 GMT+09:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:
> Probably one needs to add NSM - Natural Semantic Metalanguage as another
> language to jbovlaste and define everything through those 60 prims (or how
> many there are these days).
>
> However, NSM seems (as its name suggests) to completely ignore syntax and
> analogs of GOhA. I don't knoww, may be "this" is metaphorically extended to
> {dei} in all known human languages?
>
> At least it's worth trying to translate at least some Weirzbicka's
> definitions.
> Her books can be found here:
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d0p5khpsmvlrhcb/AADu7A-6EtaESI7OkJNKI4msa?dl=0
>

Your idea will be helpful in our actual group work on Lojban
definitions, though my suggestion was rather more simple, permitting
any circular definitions between words in Lojban. My suggestion was
only to construct a network of Lojban-only definitions between Lojban
words, so that the network could refine possible models of the
language Lojban.


2015-01-20 2:47 GMT+09:00 Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>:
> .i mi tugni do so'e da .i mi sarji gi'e cmima da'i vau lo bende be fo lo nu
> mulgau lo lojbo velcki
> .i mi ka'e se bitygau gi'e ca naju ba birti tu'a lo nu lo lojbo velcki cu
> jai ba'e *sarcu* lo vlanunjmina .iku'i mi je'a zmanei lo lojbo velcki tolcau
> se vlaste gi'e troci co ciska ri va'o lo nu mi jmina lo valsi kei noi
> pubi'oca to'e cafne
> .i ganai lo nu sarcu cu toldarsygau fi lo nu jikca lo jbovlaste gi da'i da
> drata seju bende lo se bangu be so'i rarna fo lo nu sidju lo vlafi'i lo nu
> ciska lo lojbo velcki
>
> [translated]
> I agree with you on most points. I support the idea of (and I would
> participate in) a working group to fill out the pure-Lojban definitions. I'm
> not 100% (though I could be convinced) on _requiring_ a Lojban definition in
> order to add a word, though I certainly appreciate when it's done and try to
> do it when I add a word (which I have not yet done very frequently). To the
> extent that such a requirement would discourage participation in jbovlaste,
> perhaps we could have another group (or the same group), composed of
> speakers of as many natlangs as possible, to help contributors with writing
> pure-Lojban definitions.
>
> - mu'o mi'e la durkavore
>

i'i.ui ki'e

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members