& has = been missing a while, so his ideas are not in the current files. They= were iirc mainly technical and philosophic, so not (as) relevant to struct= ural questions. (I hope this remark is inaccurate enough to get &= to reenter the lists.)

<= b>From: "Bob LeChevalier, Pres= ident and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 3:35 PM
= Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there= any demand for LoCCan3?

John E Clifford wrote:
&= gt; 0. A complete redo of the vocabulary (obviously not back-compatib= le).
> The present vocab clusters in some phonetic spaces and leaves = others
> bare, increasing the likelihood of confusion in noisy enviro= nments (if
> Lojban is ever used in one)

The Lojban design act= ually did take into account the possibility of noisy environments. Pe= rhaps not as much as some would prefer, but it certainly was a factor. = ; Primary place where this is evident is the numerals, 0-hexF, which differ= maximally in both consonant and vowel. No gismu differs from another merel= y by a voiced/unvoiced contrast in one consonant, etc. I actually did= ask someone to do further research on the matter of redundancy, but that w= as one of the cases where someone volunteered and then disappeared.

Perhaps we could have gone further, but it isn't clear= that we could have done any better, without ignoring other larger prioriti= es.

> The only reason for the
> present word list is = the claimed ease of learning, a claim that has
> never been tested on= even English speakers,

Actually, there was a limited test (I think = I have a dozen or so data sets), but the data has never been analyzed, beca= use it seems that no one but me ever cared. My knowledge of statistic= s wasn't that good to begin with, and has accumulated 40 years of rust sinc= e college.

> let alone Chinese or other languages or relevant mul= tilinguals.

We do have anecdotal reports from Chinese natives that f= ind the words/memory hooks much more learnable than Esperanto, but that isn= 't saying much.

> The revamp includes a
> revision of the d= efinitions, which could be done separately (with a bit
> more compatibility) to make the definitions simpler (generally fewer
> pl= aces, with many places that occur in many definitions but are rarely
>= ; used spun off to prepositions) and more uniform (all words of the same> sort (you are keeping your supply of scare quotes running, I hope) wo= uld
> have the same pattern of places).

The current place stru= ctures already reflect a couple generations of such revisions made before t= he baselining, as compared with TLI Loglan.

> A general shake dow= n of the cmavo
> system is also part of this, sharpening definitions,= clarifying roles,
> getting rid of detritus, relieving confusion pre= ssure, etc. For the
> most part, this is not Lojban at all but = the beginnings of a real third
> generation from Loglan.

Corre= ct.

> So not going to happen until the next
> charismatic n= ut-case comes along.

Gee thanks! No one ever accused me of being charismatic before.

> 2. Words for individuals an= d sets and masses arose out of the muddle,
> inherited from Loglan an= d not much tidied up in CLL, about what exactly
> 'lo broda' referred= to. The old underlying logic had only individuals,
> some of w= hich were sets that contained other individuals (or not). The
>= problem then was to deal with groups that did not behave like sets in
&= gt; set theory but could still go in for individual variables. For so= me
> reason, the notion that ordinary sets could take properties in d= ifferent
> ways from the usual ways for sets did not occur to anyone,= so this
> remained a problem. Until xorxes found a book about = plural
> reference/instantiation. According to this, a singular= noun could refer
> to several things at once and a singular variable= could be
> simultaneously instantiated to several things at once. Conceptually
> differently, but formally the same, sets = could be Lesniewskian rather
> than Cantorian, so that getting to the= members of a set is much easier
> (as is talking about what happens)= . Once 'lo broda' was taken to refer
> to an L-set of brodas, m= uch of the rest fell into place. Because the
> theory is also o= f the part-whole relation, it is sometimes necessary to
> distinguish= the relevant individuals (ones with no relevant parts) and
> also to= be able to talk about wholes (L-sets) in the abstract way that
> one= normally talks about C-sets. This means that some of the gadri need<= br>> redefinition (or clarification of the given definitions). The= re are
> also some residual problems with 'lo' left over from Loglan = that need
> sorting out. None of this has much affect on curren= t or past text.

I suspect that you may have provided or at least hinted at an explanation of xorlo that might make sense to me, if I = were capable of taking it in right now. I've never heard this stuff a= bout Lesniewskian or Cantorian, and have no clue what you are referring to,= but maybe someday this would make sense. Examples might help.
> That is what LoCCan3 actively contains at the moment.

I suspec= t that someone reading through Rosta's stuff would find a few more topics.<= br>
lojbab

-- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org&n= bsp; www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language G= roup, Inc.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed t= o the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to= lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com= .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.