From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Sep 02 06:51:47 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EBBxL-0002lo-C6 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:51:47 -0700 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EBBxF-0002lg-Kt for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:51:47 -0700 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x7so427682nzc for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:51:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=OvYfUgIGjCFh8KtrA0Y2uA428I1hQ+D4RvGiKoiU77ahwLcgy8a4K6nUyQ8D8538HgrRaCxg1w7907CJunQXTkRVWam6WLb4E1qXIh4JKsYnDTSfPh/bbXEmLRcBsfiOzJEyRG20b7MvOZ1J+ckDPDMdilSWycNqgauBnrpuJM0= Received: by 10.36.220.26 with SMTP id s26mr2485145nzg; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.222.64 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2d3df92a05090206511a5fe6a8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:51:40 +0200 From: HeliodoR To: Lojban-Beginners Subject: [lojban-beginners] "no exception" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5383_534871.1125669100356" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 1919 X-Approved-By: exitconsole@gmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: exitconsole@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_5383_534871.1125669100356 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hmm... (Wasn't that an original start for a mail, tell me.) I've been examining this little - or IMO not so little-meaning - statement= =20 from the Offical Page of Lojban: "Lojban is regular; the rules of the language are *without exception*." Shortly after reading this sentence (again) I came to the the idea that it= =20 is far too rough and much to claim. In fact, I feel (since I don't have any evidence to support it) that=20 exceptions are not an ignorable part of any language (or any similar=20 structure); they are 'a' and maybe 'the' utility to build up a language, to= =20 enable people communicate each other, more like. As "clothes make a man" -= =20 exceptions make a language. Well, I have told that I had no facts to support my idea, and that's quite= =20 true; although I'm going to make a try. Here it is: Let's take a computer language, let's take C for example (you may also thin= k=20 of Pascal instead, which is like an equivalent to C on a low level), which= =20 is an ideal AL according to many. Now look at it like a newborn child who hasn't seen much of any complex=20 structures yet - You'll see words sounding somewhat familiar, however=20 exotic, followed by these curves '()'; even more interesting curves '{}'=20 further from each other; simple signs here and there, looking like '+ - * /= =20 %' and so on. Now the child asks the grown-up: what are those words and the= =20 lines that follow them? And he answers: those are functions, magic spells t= o=20 get things to happen, You just write them and Your wishes come true. "And what are those funny shaped things there?" "Ah, those are operators to= =20 turn spells into a bunch, they..." "But why isn't there a spell to do that?" "Um... I don't know that exactly,= =20 it is just this way and that's all..." "Don't let me forget about that cross in the middle of the whole stuff."=20 "Yeah, that marks a mathematical function, it commands the reader to sum up= =20 the two numbers..." "I would like a separate spell for that, like 'sumup()' or something."=20 "Well, You can do that, the only... Hey, the little guys right! Why so much= =20 exceptions?? They can rather be confusing..." You see? The small boy pointed something out which might be considered a=20 very characteristic need of human thinking: making exceptions. We could have this silly C language (note the sarcasm and avoid flaming, pl= s=20 :) ) cleaned out, made perfect. Imagine a comp. lang. which I will call - no exceptions, no arbitrary! -=20 'A', probably the simplest expression one may find. A program coded in A=20 would be completely regular, looking like this: aa(ab(ac(ad,ae),af),ag(ah,ai)) etc. No exceptions. Totally. Crystal-clear, huh? Not at all to me. (Not to=20 mention that this example does not lack arbitrary, either.) According to this little experiment human logic is based on exceptions what= =20 make the text understandable. Now returning to the exclamation about "le logji bangu", we may say that..= . "...the rules of the language which are not about other rules but words (th= e=20 lowest level rules) are without exception.", or "...the rules which determine the usage of the smallest bits of the languag= e=20 are without exception.", or whatever You can come up with. Do You consider these more correct than the original one? Please do come up= =20 with a literally true statement if You might! I know this letter was really long, and I have to say thanks to all who=20 took the time to read it through. Thank You. mi'e .xili,odor. ------=_Part_5383_534871.1125669100356 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hmm... (Wasn't that an original start for a mail, tell me.)
I've been examining this little - or IMO not so little-meaning - = statement from the Offical Page of Lojban:
"Lojban is regular; the rules of the language are without= exception."
Shortly after reading this sentence (again) I = ;came to the the idea that it is far too rough and much to claim.
In fact, I feel (since I don't have any evidence to support it)&n= bsp;that exceptions are not an ignorable part of any language (or any simil= ar structure); they are 'a' and maybe 'the' utility to build up a language,= to enable people communicate each other, more like. As "clothes = make a man" - exceptions make a language.
Well, I have told that I had no facts to support my idea, and that's q= uite true; although I'm going to make a try. Here it is:
Let's take a computer language, let's take C for example (yo= u may also think of Pascal instead, which is like an equival= ent to C on a low level), which is an ideal AL according to = many.
Now look at it like a newborn child who hasn't seen much of any c= omplex structures yet - You'll see words sounding somewhat familiar, howeve= r exotic, followed by these curves '()'; even more interesting cu= rves '{}' further from each other; simple signs here and there, l= ooking like '+ - * / %' and so on. Now the child asks the grown-up: wh= at are those words and the lines that follow them? And he answers: tho= se are functions, magic spells to get things to happen, You = just write them and Your wishes come true.
"And what are those funny shaped things there?" "Ah, th= ose are operators to turn spells into a bunch, they..."=
"But why isn't there a spell to do that?" "Um... I don'= t know that exactly, it is just this way and that's all..."
"Don't let me forget about that cross in the middle of the whole = stuff." "Yeah, that marks a mathematical function, it commands th= e reader to sum up the two numbers..."
"I would like a separate spell for that, like 'sumup()' or someth= ing." "Well, You can do that, the only... Hey, the little guys ri= ght! Why so much exceptions?? They can rather be confusing..."
You see? The small boy pointed something out which migh= t be considered a very characteristic need of human thinking: mak= ing exceptions.
We could have this silly C language (note the sarcasm and avoid flamin= g, pls :) ) cleaned out, made perfect.
Imagine a comp. lang. which I will call - no exceptions, no arbitrary!= - 'A', probably the simplest expression one may find. A program coded= in A would be completely regular, looking like this:
aa(ab(ac(ad,ae),af),ag(ah,ai)) etc.
No exceptions. Totally. Crystal-clear, huh? Not at all to me. (No= t to mention that this example does not lack arbitrary, either.)
According to this little experiment human logic is based on exceptions= what make the text understandable.
 
Now returning to the exclamation about "le logji bangu", we = may say that...
"...the rules of the language which are not about other rules but= words (the lowest level rules) are without exception.", or
"...the rules which determine the usage of the smallest bits of t= he language are without exception.", or whatever You can come up with.=
Do You consider these more correct than the original one? Please do co= me up with a literally true statement if You might!
 
I know this letter was really long, and I have to say thanks to all wh= o took the time to read it through. Thank You.

mi'e .xili,odor.
------=_Part_5383_534871.1125669100356--