Received: from [::1] (port=48176 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUzuP-000157-7y; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:01:33 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:41762) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUzts-0000zl-9A for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:01:01 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id g75so49894224wme.0 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TF7/kfsM9wBILx3TDLdIAXc1ap1FsTQvPIBCPaJChrg=; b=MhqL4NYPY4S7IfGyJnk48iDecLxpkgI6l5riU+8ZJRE+EQYU0A2b4l7s2esFZdyg9e QPH+HyNyDm24eaE7OKjtMCFAt9ZAp3oK1okQ3MfyJoiNZBimw1AJs5wXHkr/7LXuKs6g UbeW9vCCREINoUezqRb/ukhYK8yo5SuX2v8RkTrGbibT9xOnsSwBBSl3wV873GnktNdW jPvXQTRgflCH9bCEIJ6NY6k9lEe+qhjVGpIGSuGyP2DMmCgsJL2cq3Y5S18wdQbUYaeH bxV9y5fV8Zml+YWweOBtPCqoVP+l4w7Oia8t0iFua0Ha4zWkD3CqfhMq4/8kfMZNrUxJ nYww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=TF7/kfsM9wBILx3TDLdIAXc1ap1FsTQvPIBCPaJChrg=; b=AyRdQgm4bb3QovuY3K5RAOQ2T20GYSZVG5RyFp1qqB7VRbsYJTXr8/YgJo5nE0q4DC fEFbSc6LtePz+GGQzoM3FMqmAAV6g9k7E4m4ojzRB+HQb/miTwAvM4MCUqnhTNQm8+CC W/vj2QKyFhdmfob0mQO08wXdNABfgVbfy/xEWxoFJHCXQUSn/R6XJx1u7/SWpWYDEAU0 qQLGSiawql7MUJTziDljLNxgpWz4W6sql3zdDDj3H7EAeN0dgNjyN6wgx7tptHRImtR7 D1FoJqHBB2Js6TXB8kvhSXOQZ+41t8QgSPihyquk6EteJFTbWCOFJuHcuJCTc42sRkpP h33g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJH/dukE+1iF5qcC+Hgzv9zMsFfbwE7NuskODxQDEz8JKNO+QRW 0vnEPoOeHS/NVG+5nIyiiltSEURliF5hMf6ZYQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovv2mstcqGnvprDDn3wheb2Kv7BEchENSHUJhOezoDbm4aOW7YD9e0Xowf3K0mSx7vfguOv7S2uHdjW4ZSvHsQ= X-Received: by 10.80.158.196 with SMTP id a62mr45895770edf.307.1514574053306; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:00:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:00:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 22:00:12 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1700294030601630024==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1700294030601630024== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19b9766ef97f05617f408b" --94eb2c19b9766ef97f05617f408b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" So according to you there is a non-existent logical language. Okay, what's next? LLG should support it but not Lojban? But why? What says that LLG should support only a language that 1. does some encoding of predicate-argument structure that 2. does not exist and therefore 3. is not proved/shown to do 1. ? 2017-12-29 21:55 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expressible) can > be represented as a predicate--argument structure, a logical language (in > the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that unambiguously > bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (What Pycyn terms > 'monoparsing'. The bidirectionality is going from PAS to phonological form > and from phonological form to PAS.) > > The Lojban baseline is not sufficient to unambiguously go from > phonological form to PAS. Probably if xorxes and selpa'i had been given > carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement (i.e. > changing the design as they saw fit, rather than merely trying to document > a preexisting design, as John Cowan was constrained to do), the deficiency > could have been remedied to a large extent, but the more thorough the > remedy the more extensive the changes necessary (e.g. excising much > grammatical complexity). Lojban can satisfy the PAS to phonological form > direction only by the trivial means of having a crude method of > lexicalizing standard predicate logic notation. > > Creating a loglang is trivially simple, even though Lojban isn't one. The > very difficult (and perhaps insuperable?) challenge of loglang design is to > make one that is ergonomic. As far as ergonomy of design goes, Lojban is an > utter trainwreck, so even if you got xorxes and selpa'i to patch it up > (rather than redesign it into Xorban or Toaq), it would be an > extraordinarily bad loglang and it would be an injury to the world if > conservative adherence to so bad a loglang were to inhibit the search for, > and adherence to, better ones. > > As far as the future of Lojban and LLG goes, I tend to agree with Lojbab > that Lojban should be defined purely through the usage of speakers who view > CLL as holy writ; to continue to advertise it as a logical language would > be dishonest, but to advertise it as the realization of Brown's whorfian > experiment would be quite just (notwithstanding that qua experiment it was > doomed to fail). Even though Lojban is not a loglang, it is still > megageeky, picturesquely baroque and very sui generis and should continue > to attract a user community of the suitably quixotic. > > Perhaps if LLG shared the views I've expressed above, then LLG could > continue to promote both Lojban (for what it is, rather than as a logical > language) and, in keeping with the Bylaws, the development of ergonomic > loglangs. I'd be very happy with such an outcome. > > --And. > > On 29 Dec 2017 16:19, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > > I think that this has been covered in some detail elsewhere, but it is > germane to this discussion and I opine that this discussion is still > relevant to the overall purpose and general conceptual orientation of this > meeting, so explication should be provided. > > I would also like to have, listed here, all of the generic defining > qualities of a logical language (not just examples of such) and explanation > of how Lojban fails to satisfy that or those which it does. > > On Dec 29, 2017 11:14, "Gleki Arxokuna" > wrote: > >> And, what IS a logical language? Show us one. >> >> 2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >>> >>> >>> On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: >>> > The bylaws were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of >>> research into logical languages, and there has always been the possibility >>> of conducting or supporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has >>> been interested in such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and >>> studying the use of Lojban. >>> >>> That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac. >>> >>> I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to >>> explore logical language, as opposed to the mission to promote Lojban. As a >>> member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventually changed my position, >>> but this was because it became increasingly evident to me that the two >>> goals (of exploring and promoting logical language, versus promoting >>> Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban community, a >>> victory for the one goal can be achieved only through the defeat of the >>> other; but success in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved only >>> within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of >>> promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters of >>> Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life's >>> work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's life's work >>> should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban community >>> should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and therefore >>> must not be required to promote logical language). >>> >>> > Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "logical languages", >>> which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and never have been - >>> languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly >>> "invent" with the complete full documentation needed for new people to >>> learn and use them. So I hope selpa'i will forgive me if I don't look at >>> his own efforts at a new "logical language". >>> >>> This is all true, except that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a >>> logical language, for all that it might falsely advertise itself as such. >>> >>> The antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue >>> users and promotes itself by falsely claiming to be a logical language. Any >>> logical language is therefore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim >>> to be a logical language, coupled with its comparative fame, is an obstacle >>> to -- a distraction from -- the promotion of logical language. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but >>> until then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote >>> the purposes described in the Bylaws. >>> >>> >>> Again, patent bullshit. >>> >>> >>> While I would be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes >>> described in the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its >>> baselined and current forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban >>> community rather than from the logical language community, it is obviously >>> and not unreasonably the case that the large majority of LLG members >>> prioritize the promotion of Lojban over the promotion of the purposes >>> described in the Bylaws. >>> >>> --And. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Llg-members mailing list >>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c19b9766ef97f05617f408b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So according to you there is a non-existent logical langua= ge. Okay, what's next? LLG should support it but not Lojban? But why? W= hat says that LLG should support only a language that 1. does some encoding= of predicate-argument structure that 2. does not exist and therefore 3. is= not proved/shown to do 1. ?

2017-12-29 21:55 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <= ;and.rosta@gmail.c= om>:
Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expressible) can= be represented as a predicate--argument structure, a logical language (in = the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that unambiguously bidirectionall= y encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (What Pycyn terms 'monoparsing&#= 39;. The bidirectionality is going from PAS to phonological form and from p= honological form to PAS.)

The Lojban baseline is not sufficient to unambiguously go from phonologic= al form to PAS. Probably if xorxes and selpa'i had been given carte bla= nche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement (i.e. changing = the design as they saw fit, rather than merely trying to document a preexis= ting design, as John Cowan was constrained to do), the deficiency could hav= e been remedied to a large extent, but the more thorough the remedy the mor= e extensive the changes necessary (e.g. excising much grammatical complexit= y). Lojban can satisfy the PAS to phonological form direction only by the t= rivial means of having a crude method of lexicalizing standard predicate lo= gic notation.=C2=A0

Crea= ting a loglang is trivially simple, even though Lojban isn't one. The v= ery difficult (and perhaps insuperable?) challenge of loglang design is to = make one that is ergonomic. As far as ergonomy of design goes, Lojban is an= utter trainwreck, so even if you got xorxes and selpa'i to patch it up= (rather than redesign it into Xorban or Toaq), it would be an extraordinar= ily bad loglang and it would be an injury to the world if conservative adhe= rence to so bad a loglang were to inhibit the search for, and adherence to,= better ones.

As far as = the future of Lojban and LLG goes, I tend to agree with Lojbab that Lojban = should be defined purely through the usage of speakers who view CLL as holy= writ; to continue to advertise it as a logical language would be dishonest= , but to advertise it as the realization of Brown's whorfian experiment= would be quite just (notwithstanding that qua experiment it was doomed to = fail). Even though Lojban is not a loglang, it is still megageeky, pictures= quely baroque and very sui generis and should continue to attract a user co= mmunity of the suitably quixotic.

Perhaps if LLG shared the views I've expressed above, then LL= G could continue to promote both Lojban (for what it is, rather than as a l= ogical language) and, in keeping with the Bylaws, the development of ergono= mic loglangs.=C2=A0 I'd be very happy with such an outcome.

--And.

= On 29 Dec 2017 16:19, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> w= rote:
I think that this has been covered in some detail elsewh= ere, but it is germane to this discussion and I opine that this discussion = is still relevant to the overall purpose and general conceptual orientation= of this meeting, so explication should be provided.

<= /div>
I would also like to have, listed here, all of the g= eneric defining qualities of a logical language (not just examples of such)= and explanation of how Lojban fails to satisfy that or those which it does= .

On Dec 29, 2017 11:14, "Gl= eki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
And, what IS a logical l= anguage? Show us one.

2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&= gt;:


On 26= Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> The bylaws were formulated to broadly = cover a variety of forms of research into logical languages, and there has = always been the possibility of conducting or supporting such research. But = to put it simply, no one has been interested in such research EXCEPT in the= form of promoting and studying the use of Lojban.

That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac.

I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission= to explore logical language, as opposed to the mission to promote Lojban. = As a member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventually changed my positio= n, but this was because it became increasingly evident to me that the two g= oals (of exploring and promoting logical language, versus promoting Lojban)= are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban community, a victory f= or the one goal can be achieved only through the defeat of the other; but s= uccess in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved only within LLG and = the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of promoting logical lang= uage can be achieved outside it; many promoters of Lojban (as opposed to lo= gical language) have invested much of their life's work in the enterpri= se, and pursuing the failure of another's life's work should be avo= ided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban community should be left = to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and therefore must not be requi= red to promote logical language).

>=C2=A0 Inde= ed, there is a strong antipathy to other "logical languages", whi= ch I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and never have been -= languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly= "invent" with the complete full documentation needed for new peo= ple to learn and use them.=C2=A0 So I hope selpa'i will forgive me if I= don't look at his own efforts at a new "logical language".

This is all true, except that the Lojban that Loj= bab endorses is not a logical language, for all that it might falsely adver= tise itself as such.=C2=A0
The antipathy Lojbab describ= es exists because Lojban seeks to accrue users and promotes itself by false= ly claiming to be a logical language. Any logical language is therefore a r= ival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim to be a logical language, coup= led with its comparative fame, is an obstacle to -- a distraction from -- t= he promotion of logical language.




So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but unti= l then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote the pu= rposes described in the Bylaws.

Again, patent bullshit.=C2=A0


Whi= le I would be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes descri= bed in the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its baselined an= d current forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban community rather t= han from the logical language community, it is obviously and not unreasonab= ly the case that the large majority of LLG members prioritize the promotion= of Lojban over the promotion of the purposes described in the Bylaws.=C2= =A0

<= div dir=3D"auto">--And.

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



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


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



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


--94eb2c19b9766ef97f05617f408b-- --===============1700294030601630024== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============1700294030601630024==--