Received: from localhost ([::1]:60839 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YE8db-0002aN-SW; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:40:55 -0800 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.230]:4880 helo=cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YE8dU-0002aG-S2 for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:40:53 -0800 Received: from [98.122.190.249] ([98.122.190.249:34350] helo=bezitopo.org) by cdptpa-oedge02 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 4B/BF-29286-93170C45; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 03:40:42 +0000 Received: from caracal.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bezitopo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CE619D1 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: llg-members@lojban.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:40:40 -0500 Message-ID: <1452581.qY9A6FZISZ@caracal> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-43-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 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: On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:52:26 guskant wrote: > Besides, it may be too much advanced thought, but I think all official > gismu and cmavo should be defined in Lojban. > > 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. I think the > universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the other > languages. [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in phma.optus.nu.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [107.14.166.230 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:52:26 guskant wrote: > Besides, it may be too much advanced thought, but I think all official > gismu and cmavo should be defined in Lojban. > > 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. I think the > universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the other > languages. Defining all words of a language in that language necessarily produces a circular sequence of definitions, which makes it impossible for someone who doesn't already know the language to figure out what they mean. I'm not against defining Lojban words in Lojban, but they should also be defined in all six source languages. On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:47:11 And Rosta wrote: > It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal > grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a > useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of > which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. I think the formal grammar should stay. For one thing, it allows a kind of humor not possible in natlangs, sentences that are syntactically correct according to the formal grammar but not the "actual grammar", such as "mi te.u do du ra'o lo gerku pe naku". Pierre -- loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members