Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:61091)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKOXn8wTEOi_3v8EGgRAIDDQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SnKpj-0004lQ-0f; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:33:21 -0700
Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2sf11205156pbb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=Dpr9twPmj2FpXgDGeSe4tPp6l4f+u9+pd6Cds5Q0AWY=;
        b=liR3pmqqWOE5Tt/Jnimw2INgQsHu1rYu9FdiLCfleiSXeoaXfFMJVLBBcvxXuFqBAS
         Tkvd52+08K8LbK/z+c5L2VSf5ro5APeWbJsMuZxr2G9wZVe19tRhjSfTlmxs+GxOWqBt
         lzgK7UWaGos3zh5jj8gJBVixrmNIViYd6KFPQ=
Received: by 10.52.95.238 with SMTP id dn14mr2039305vdb.1.1341628392706;
        Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.35.202 with SMTP id k10ls5476748vdj.0.gmail; Fri, 06 Jul
 2012 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.95.238 with SMTP id dn14mr2039304vdb.1.1341628391165;
        Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 19:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <94270542-27d3-458e-af31-9361f81841cc@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF74E66.1020605@gmail.com>
References: <90a7e54c-42fe-4ee0-9693-8155db9a7646@googlegroups.com> <bac4e707-21fc-49ae-9e5e-6c5790dadcf2@googlegroups.com> <62818d3a-c188-43d5-ad25-09c4cc9aca6c@googlegroups.com> <1341252212.22198.YahooMailNeo@web184415.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4FF20621.1090100@lojban.org> <1341333405.7836.YahooMailNeo@web184416.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <4FF74E66.1020605@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any demand for LoCCan3?
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_448_29609287.1341628390587"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_448_29609287.1341628390587
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:45:26 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> John E Clifford, On 03/07/2012 17:36: 
> > & 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 
> structural questions. (I hope this remark is inaccurate enough to get & to 
> reenter the lists.) 
>
> Okay. So I'll address Gleki's question about "Is there any demand for 
> LoCCan3", and also this, because Jonathan could equally well have asked the 
> same question of me: 
> Jonathan Jones, On 01/07/2012 22:59: 
> > John, I was wondering. It seems to me that you rarely contribute 
> > anything to the community, and when you do, it is usually to 
> > criticize, to point out what you perceive to be flaws in Lojban. You 
> > also frequently express your opinion as to the need for a LoCCan3, as 
> > you put it. From my experience, it seems that you don't like Lojban. 
> > 
> > Now, I may be wrong about all of this, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
> > you contribute(d) a great deal that I'm unaware of. But assuming the 
> > above is true, and these are your feelings, why are you hear? I am 
> > truly curious to know why you maintain a presence in something it 
> > seems you not only do not care about, but apparently actively 
> > dislike, especially given your recent comment about being unable to 
> > keep a straight face in discussing Lojban. 
>
> I have for decades (more than two, not quite three, so far -- i.e. all my 
> adult life) been very interested in the idea of there existing a certain 
> sort of loglang and of this loglang being available to the world for use. I 
> think it would be a boon for the world to have recourse to an ergonomically 
> usable unambiguous language. Not everybody interested in Loglan--Lojban is 
> interested in any sort of loglang, but it does seem as though quite a few 
> people involved in Loglan--Lojban have been interested in a loglang, and 
> also as though many of those interested in loglangs, especially ones with a 
> community of sponsors, gravitate towards Loglan--Lojban. 
>
> I define a loglang as one that can unambiguously encode any explicit 
> predicate logic formula in a way that is no less concise than the way 
> natlangs would express the formula (with much greater ambiguity and leaving 
> much more to be glorked from context). The relevance of the concision 
> requirement is firstly that without it, the gain in clarity is not 
> necessarily worth the effort of greater verbosity; rather, the goal is to 
> up the clarity-to-verbosity ratio. And secondly, designing a language that 
> can unambiguously encode any explicit predicate logic formula is trivially 
> easy; it's only the concision requirement that makes the challenge 
> difficult (or maybe impossible). Not everybody defines their sought-for 
> loglang by these criteria. For example, John Clifford and Martin Bays are 
> very preoccupied with having a highly specified semantics for the loglang, 
> which is something I'm rather unsympathetic to. 
>
Just several hours ago I posted a short note<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=236029819851609&set=a.200050570116201.43269.100003337779349&type=1&theater&notif_t=photo_comment>on another critique of Lojban from the side semanticophils.

>
> Considered *as a loglang (in my definition of that term)*, Lojban is a 
> complete failure, though it must be borne in mind that it wasn't 
> fundamentally designed to be a loglang; the loglang aspect is more part of 
> its (undeserved) reputation than its essence. (I should clarify that, once 
> the BPFK does its work, which basically involves Robin wielding the 
> political muscle and Xorxes wielding the intellectual muscle, Lojban would 
> succeed in being logically unambiguous. The failure is to meet the (never 
> aimed-for) criterion of concision.) (I should also note that Lojban has 
> been a success relative to the goals of the founders of Lojban, namely to 
> create a public-domain stable "finished" version of Loglan around which a 
> community of users can grow.) 
>
> I'm here (on this list) partly because I've been part of the community for 
> over 20 years, and at certain times have been the most active participant, 
> so I feel a sense of (always marginalized) belonging. But also I'm here 
> because I think there's a chance of a genuine loglang coupled with a 
> community of sponsors emerging from the Loglan--Lojban community. There 
> might come a time when enough folk that think as I do have gravitated 
> hither that some sort of critical mass is formed and work on an 
> ergonomically usable loglang is begun. 
>
> It's easy to think of ways of drastically improving on the Lojban design. 

 

> For example, discard rafsi

 How would you distinguish between {latcribe} and {mlatu cribe} then? The 
latter is definitely not panda.

> , make all gismu CCV -- becomes conciser and easier to learn in one go.

Yes, lowering signal-to-noise ratio even further ;)

> Or discard almost all selmaho, default to Polish notation syntax,

Can you provide us with any draft of such language? 

> and you have something much conciser, much more easy to learn, much more 
> easy to parse. I suppose that even these changes are so drastic that they'd 
> amount to discarding the current Loglan--Lojban entirely and starting over, 
> but I think a complete redesign is anyway necessary because of the one 
> fundamental design challenge of a loglang, which is the challenge of 
> representing where two argument-places have the same value (e.g. in "John 
> laughed and sneezed", where the argument-place of John(), of Laugh() and of 
> Sneeze() have the same value): specifically, the challenge is to represent 
> that in a concise and human-usable way (bearing in mind that a normal 
> sentence might involve dozens of groups of argument-places that have the 
> same value). You c 
> ould call this loglang "LoCCan3", but, unlike John Clifford's vision, it 
> couldn't be achieved by incremental revisions to LoCCan2. 
>
I can praise any improvements backward compatible with the current 
language. But any new loglangs not having a parser just don't exist to me. 
  They are just projects, not working loglangs.


> --And. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/iZdaG8R7xkwJ.
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=en.


------=_Part_448_29609287.1341628390587
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:45:26 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:<block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-le=
ft: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">John E Clifford, On 03/07/2012 17:36=
:
<br>&gt; &amp; has been missing a while, so his ideas are not in the curren=
t files. They were iirc mainly technical and philosophic, so not (as) relev=
ant to structural questions. (I hope this remark is inaccurate enough to ge=
t &amp; to reenter the lists.)
<br>
<br>Okay. So I'll address Gleki's question about "Is there any demand for L=
oCCan3", and also this, because Jonathan could equally well have asked the =
same question of me:
<br>Jonathan Jones, On 01/07/2012 22:59:
<br>&gt; John, I was wondering. It seems to me that you rarely contribute
<br>&gt; anything to the community, and when you do, it is usually to
<br>&gt; criticize, to point out what you perceive to be flaws in Lojban. Y=
ou
<br>&gt; also frequently express your opinion as to the need for a LoCCan3,=
 as
<br>&gt; you put it. From my experience, it seems that you don't like Lojba=
n.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; Now, I may be wrong about all of this, and I wouldn't be surprised=
 if
<br>&gt; you contribute(d) a great deal that I'm unaware of. But assuming t=
he
<br>&gt; above is true, and these are your feelings, why are you hear? I am
<br>&gt; truly curious to know why you maintain a presence in something it
<br>&gt; seems you not only do not care about, but apparently actively
<br>&gt; dislike, especially given your recent comment about being unable t=
o
<br>&gt; keep a straight face in discussing Lojban.
<br>
<br>I have for decades (more than two, not quite three, so far -- i.e. all =
my adult life) been very interested in the idea of there existing a certain=
 sort of loglang and of this loglang being available to the world for use. =
I think it would be a boon for the world to have recourse to an ergonomical=
ly usable unambiguous language. Not everybody interested in Loglan--Lojban =
is interested in any sort of loglang, but it does seem as though quite a fe=
w people involved in Loglan--Lojban have been interested in a loglang, and =
also as though many of those interested in loglangs, especially ones with a=
 community of sponsors, gravitate towards Loglan--Lojban.
<br>
<br>I define a loglang as one that can unambiguously encode any explicit pr=
edicate logic formula in a way that is no less concise than the way natlang=
s would express the formula (with much greater ambiguity and leaving much m=
ore to be glorked from context). The relevance of the concision requirement=
 is firstly that without it, the gain in clarity is not necessarily worth t=
he effort of greater verbosity; rather, the goal is to up the clarity-to-ve=
rbosity ratio. And secondly, designing a language that can unambiguously en=
code any explicit predicate logic formula is trivially easy; it's only the =
concision requirement that makes the challenge difficult (or maybe impossib=
le). Not everybody defines their sought-for loglang by these criteria. For =
example, John Clifford and Martin Bays are very preoccupied with having a h=
ighly specified semantics for the loglang, which is something I'm rather un=
sympathetic to.
<br></blockquote><div>Just several hours ago I posted <a href=3D"https://ww=
w.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3D236029819851609&amp;set=3Da.200050570116201=
.43269.100003337779349&amp;type=3D1&amp;theater&amp;notif_t=3Dphoto_comment=
">a short note</a> on another critique of Lojban from the side semanticophi=
ls.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: =
0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Considered *as a loglang (in my definition of that term)*, Lojban is a =
complete failure, though it must be borne in mind that it wasn't fundamenta=
lly designed to be a loglang; the loglang aspect is more part of its (undes=
erved) reputation than its essence. (I should clarify that, once the BPFK d=
oes its work, which basically involves Robin wielding the political muscle =
and Xorxes wielding the intellectual muscle, Lojban would succeed in being =
logically unambiguous. The failure is to meet the (never aimed-for) criteri=
on of concision.) (I should also note that Lojban has been a success relati=
ve to the goals of the founders of Lojban, namely to create a public-domain=
 stable "finished" version of Loglan around which a community of users can =
grow.)
<br>
<br>I'm here (on this list) partly because I've been part of the community =
for over 20 years, and at certain times have been the most active participa=
nt, so I feel a sense of (always marginalized) belonging. But also I'm here=
 because I think there's a chance of a genuine loglang coupled with a commu=
nity of sponsors emerging from the Loglan--Lojban community. There might co=
me a time when enough folk that think as I do have gravitated hither that s=
ome sort of critical mass is formed and work on an ergonomically usable log=
lang is begun.
<br>
<br>It's easy to think of ways of drastically improving on the Lojban desig=
n. </blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex=
;">For example, discard rafsi</blockquote><div>&nbsp;How would you distingu=
ish between {latcribe} and {mlatu cribe} then? The latter is definitely not=
 panda.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-le=
ft: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">, make all gismu =
CCV -- becomes conciser and easier to learn in one go.</blockquote><div>Yes=
, lowering signal-to-noise ratio even further ;)<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left: 1ex;"> Or discard almost all selmaho, default to Poli=
sh notation syntax,</blockquote><div>Can you provide us with any draft of s=
uch language?&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"> and =
you have something much conciser, much more easy to learn, much more easy t=
o parse. I suppose that even these changes are so drastic that they'd amoun=
t to discarding the current Loglan--Lojban entirely and starting over, but =
I think a complete redesign is anyway necessary because of the one fundamen=
tal design challenge of a loglang, which is the challenge of representing w=
here two argument-places have the same value (e.g. in "John laughed and sne=
ezed", where the argument-place of John(), of Laugh() and of Sneeze() have =
the same value): specifically, the challenge is to represent that in a conc=
ise and human-usable way (bearing in mind that a normal sentence might invo=
lve dozens of groups of argument-places that have the same value). You c
<br>ould call this loglang "LoCCan3", but, unlike John Clifford's vision, i=
t couldn't be achieved by incremental revisions to LoCCan2.
<br></blockquote><div>I can praise any improvements backward compatible wit=
h the current language. But any new loglangs not having a parser just don't=
 exist to me. &nbsp; They are just projects, not working loglangs.</div><di=
v><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-lef=
t: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>--And.
<br></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/iZdaG8R7xkwJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/iZ=
daG8R7xkwJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_448_29609287.1341628390587--