Received: from localhost ([::1]:50422 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebaln-0004bc-HQ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:35:55 -0800 Received: from mail-yb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:45872) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebalI-0004ZK-97 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:35:25 -0800 Received: by mail-yb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id k127so2966985ybc.12 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:35:24 -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=tGenQFaBYAdHrmx7xIKGfIWAdOkVg7SvfDWTIB2nVkA=; b=gZBh8Fllf0zl+hq0GlNLX0DqW4UaoOjYZKzpFsYh+kWNIHzRE+1aH7YlycGtwxqEyg C2naTMn2emHdGUUBNtFNoTvniWQbqQsgXGrzG6BImUvp5iluj8Kgmon0RH5VCqwE5bl4 FW1mNE/wNAP4PO2xW2KMef2DyUAgeCwW5U0DCzs4lr5AZcsyRbB9Q2tTcqs4gSd4vrMC dtxeOO/W8R/JJsYkiMAJvflr9Wgp7bXtmv/kDm3WyeaIedAgampDI3vT3MdbIzVevRaT Tt4GLnP7y45dFg+uNp2wjHfkLXEpVA7q/Hf1XlHEOyOBgCxsJUTgKdkNAel5cR714TF6 77Uw== 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=tGenQFaBYAdHrmx7xIKGfIWAdOkVg7SvfDWTIB2nVkA=; b=CpN+hOppVzV0PJxcyy6nVCteCcuNjM67uDcX2/31q0eX8D9n2LlL/KZm78Xt1Y/Slg kinMs3xzybx4v+NPNbYKUBTbcJaalkDcCkK+CIhRvs8vzPRpZs+ytroQiWEm3PcJ0JCN gXM/4i1/jssM+ngSfTn81E+0aOBk3JeSfhH2/N8hOv8eIm1By4GQYNlKK+3y0kQdja0G SJNCeLWHWPVJrxeaK31ErhGB0tiVbsvEBSkfnEVzyRzBk7H7ygSbHMdHSm6WBTcUurYG SEfDcHb64BUCbkudpHkOcgPRE+7tHYMjdY5DbssI9Gd4PIVw2t136ZWDlSqhX4E4rVUu I5CA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKO8Zkx9ao7B2SR6kpwxwGut+7Ecilan4tNcS1NJS/C+7MpFXwK zrq5qJsK9cZQZLyT8C5Kry/vqBJ5GWDatNrx3wg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoulrJHsAHlEeOAtV7hMED+BhVrmQjmSux4FIqfZREmmNG92gxbjp7Y4FcwAJd5CeLx9guwSFrhiPKpY/MLAksc= X-Received: by 10.37.180.130 with SMTP id o2mr36279686ybj.230.1516145717637; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:35:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:35:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:35:16 -0500 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="===============7077990480887329880==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7077990480887329880== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ea5feed75fc0562ed2e5f" --f403045ea5feed75fc0562ed2e5f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Loglang group? Motion #1 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting loglangs (and defines "loglang" for that purpose). Motion #2 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting Lojban (regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to any given definition). Motion #3 is about the LLG supporting the creation of a Lojban-derivative loglang (in accordance with the definition of "loglang" in Motion #1). On Jan 16, 2018 18:28, "And Rosta" wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 2018 15:31, "Ilmen" wrote: > > =E2=94=8C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80= =E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2= =94=80=E2=94=90 > =E2=94=82 =E2=94=98 > > 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". > > > Everything illocutionary and information-structural can be expressed in > PAS, I would argue. Indeed I would argue that everything that can be > expressed in natural language can be couched in PAS. > > However, just because that's what I'd argue doesn't mean we have to > presuppose it to be true. But it seems to me that that if there did turn > out to be stuff that a natlang can express but a loglang can't, that's > something the loglang group (Motion 2, I think) should deliberate then, i= f > that hypothetical situation comes to pass, rather than something that mus= t > be deliberated now. > > --And. > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --f403045ea5feed75fc0562ed2e5f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Loglang group?

Motion #1 is about the LLG advocating for and supporting loglangs (and d= efines "loglang" for that purpose).

Motion #2 is about the LLG advocating for and support= ing Lojban (regardless of its categorization as a loglang according to any = given definition).

Motio= n #3 is about the LLG supporting=C2=A0 the creation of a Lojban-derivative = loglang (in accordance with the definition of "loglang" in Motion= #1).

= On Jan 16, 2018 18:28, "And Rosta" <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


On 5 Jan 2018 15:31, "Ilmen"= ; <ilmen.po= kebip@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20 
=E2=94=8C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=
=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=
=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=90
=E2=94=82 =E2=94=98

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".

Everything illocutionary and inform= ation-structural can be expressed in PAS, I would argue. Indeed I would arg= ue that everything that can be expressed in natural language can be couched= in PAS.=C2=A0=C2=A0

How= ever, just because that's what I'd argue doesn't mean we have t= o presuppose it to be true. But it seems to me that that if there did turn = out to be stuff that a natlang can express but a loglang can't, that= 9;s something the loglang group (Motion 2, I think) should deliberate then,= if that hypothetical situation comes to pass, rather than something that m= ust be deliberated now.

= --And.

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

--f403045ea5feed75fc0562ed2e5f-- --===============7077990480887329880== 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 --===============7077990480887329880==--