Received: from localhost ([::1]:42318 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXVBo-0001XO-Jv; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:49:52 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.161.180]:44190) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXVBI-0001WN-E7 for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:49:21 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f180.google.com with SMTP id m129so1961097ywb.11 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:49:20 -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=k8L+dX1cmRnqQUvPO8x/3NrUB9VIsft7UXaAwlbzWZ4=; b=IOgTWu/x0krW8GflA29HN5npLa/p+RAbYPD/Kriy9jdAn1I4rjszm6IT8gezWpU5qU 6PXXvkCRfd0Qm/g5rkWrYP7ahFCDq2JYRmCpYzNekaVEnmSxqZtpvlabm1kMGy+aqNtL A94njrZAzmV60imtoqQEC7YCNkGYAWtYJLlT0Qe1Z5V1eYQP8WVtORXTRjRoF6eKsYdo 4OGkTFeZmwrFJHd4G8VpYAxiQzuMOGI35qAdmZvTaNvzv9sULKQcyKZ7L65esZhUyzhd hjbhmszbrC5NB0zElXUYNWLWF1BC13NPhqQmjWPojiFK4DXEgkoJlDezQbXhvQjgGVUu GgIw== 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=k8L+dX1cmRnqQUvPO8x/3NrUB9VIsft7UXaAwlbzWZ4=; b=aDOvKWHev8m6w642VSOyZOuff+8ZL5dushb7NQ5exChbV4IilkEuxojdwnejALcD7N BNr0/A7ZqGeIHYNhc1ziVF8tTkUn8KdchDsoZ8np15Vau5XraxHXgZb8d/XR0/+g4TB8 9s7Qs97HyBbSDbI4zFe+j/8js+cHWhEWFsI6SW2zJ5L7mpUli0CKK1cJWK8AsOBwnh2M 4htBmwRxJskvWqWwhRddtsc+FvKgVPEF+F/FRL7w1zIqIOdtg4OKcYeF5pIRs2Kt2Dwq ZMgzY8R0eHcAh8GSJSZo6mwJFD7Eg7PPRNpvYfo0EsCzzfavEiQg0iHNLKU7zCzLA3qR VwAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mID/tPW0YE4+d/x2euribwDpo9qEGqRwpTrHeoTutudinEkVEJo aL7RBHe3fsRcGH2tz1xgzNgolhZ6g6sVPv6ncqU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouSi3RAgSAacNlToVcYnJbegMO6CfhLJ+6shS9G5+sXEPWv7zZQdeOfh2xEO7DOYnlvBKyeCjwb5WLP6WlK42I= X-Received: by 10.13.244.3 with SMTP id d3mr3201905ywf.167.1515170953199; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:49:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 08:49:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 08:49:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:49:12 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 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="===============5853832682573052740==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5853832682573052740== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19ccc070866a05620a3ae0" --94eb2c19ccc070866a05620a3ae0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It should be noted that the language need not be capable of expressing every PAS or even every effable expression/concept (these two things are not necessarily equivalent; the set of all PASs is a superset of the set of all effable things when the assumption applies). I take "unlimited" to mean "arbitrarily many" or "infinitely many", but not necessarily "all". There could be gaps in which some things that are effable or PASs cannot be expressed in the language. For an extremely simple example, if we take a loglang according to this definition and then remove all of its words for "cat", then I believe that the result is nonetheless a loglang according to this definition as well, albeit a more restricted and weaker one. Removing some syntactic fuctions/features could produce the same result (for example, by removing "and", or support for dependent clauses, or the ability to generate tanru/'adjective-noun' pairs). I would not even expect/demand expressive closure (here meaning something like the property that the effable combination or extension of expressible PAS(s) remains expressible). On Jan 5, 2018 11:30, "selpahi" wrote: On 05.01.2018 16:30, Ilmen wrote: > I'm not certain that everything in a loglang must have a representation i= n > the logical form, specifically things like information structure markers > (e.g. {ba'e}, {kau}) and possibly some attitudinals or discursives. > > Maybe we should allow some extralogical information to be lost in a > conversion from the phonological from to PAS and then back to the > phonological form. > > But maybe even information structure markers could be expressed in the PA= S, > in the form of a separate proposition like "I emphasize the word X in my > previous utterance". But just for prudence's sake, I wouldn't yet exclude > extralogical markers from the definition of a loglang. > > Nevertheless, Curtis' wording does not seem to entail such an exclusion, > as it doesn't say that conversions back and from the phonological from > must yield exactly the same result. > I personally would not assert such an exclusion at the current time, but we should discuss it. There's something else that should be clarified about And's definition. Does "unambiguous bidirectionality from PAS to phonological form and from phonological form to PAS" imply that every PAS has *exactly* one corresponding phonological form (as opposed to one or more)? Because that would be quite a rigid language. In other words, does that definition exclude things that let you change the word order without changing the meaning (like selma'o FA)? My current understanding is that there is no such restriction, except in exacting consideration of formal expressions without regard to their semantics (wherein one considers "if A then B" to be formally different from "B if A" (among other things), for example). The bidirectionality is not an isomorphism; in fact, it is not even necessarily a function in either direction. It is just a relationship. I may be wrong about that though. Note: You only seconded the motion but did not yet approve of it formally, > if I'm not mistaken. > Yes. I seconded the motion, which means I think it is worth being voted on. A second does not entail agreement. Voting is a separate step (the President has opened the vote in another thread). Correct. Likewise for me. ~~~mi'e la selpa'i --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --94eb2c19ccc070866a05620a3ae0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It should be noted that the language need not be cap= able of expressing every PAS or even every effable expression/concept (thes= e two things are not necessarily equivalent; the set of all PASs is a super= set of the set of all effable things when the assumption applies). I take &= quot;unlimited" to mean "arbitrarily many" or "infinite= ly many", but not necessarily "all". There could be gaps in = which some things that are effable or PASs cannot be expressed in the langu= age. For an extremely simple example, if we take a loglang according to thi= s definition and then remove all of its words for "cat", then I b= elieve that the result is nonetheless a loglang according to this definitio= n as well, albeit a more restricted and weaker one. Removing some syntactic= fuctions/features could produce the same result (for example, by removing = "and", or support for dependent clauses, or the ability to genera= te tanru/'adjective-noun' pairs).

=
I would not even expect/demand expressive closure (here m= eaning something like the property that the effable combination or extensio= n of expressible PAS(s) remains expressible).

On Jan 5, 2018 11:30, "se= lpahi" <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:
On 05.01.2018 16:30, Ilmen wrote:
I'm not certain that everything in a loglang must have a representation= in
the logical form, specifically things like information structure markers (e.g. {ba'e}, {kau}) and possibly some attitudinals or discursives.

Maybe we should allow some extralogical information to be lost in a
conversion from the phonological from to PAS and then back to the
phonological form.

But maybe even information structure markers could be expressed in the PAS,=
in the form of a separate proposition like "I emphasize the word X in = my
previous utterance". But just for prudence's sake, I wouldn't = yet exclude
extralogical markers from the definition of a loglang.

Nevertheless, Curtis' wording does not seem to entail such an exclusion= ,
as it doesn't say that conversions back and from the phonological from<= br> must yield exactly the same result.


=

--94eb2c19ccc070866a05620a3ae0-- --===============5853832682573052740== 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 --===============5853832682573052740==--