Received: from mail-wi0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]:55283)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDIpOf_BBoExXjUCQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SnwHr-0007jc-Ly; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:56 -0700
Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14sf1528459wib.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to: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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Ul562BklOPUhMK9SFOQN9Glc7yBZGyjd7vsL/u0mnqo=;
        b=008x33cU/8TmWFoE3RbXEChVSQW1tHHblri4BDfFOVg3A45CohpBWfKCXQxbvxO6XE
         EQdhPFzFhRett5YxikPLf/KWa2Dr1oRd9AIcmSB7G7rq51H6AhSaQXbzPhooEotLKxsy
         ZsRxX/VcBFHX28CerKMNckHWJiwBU17XGP4ck=
Received: by 10.216.145.84 with SMTP id o62mr246942wej.0.1341772360981;
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.14.99.194 with SMTP id x42ls535860eef.6.gmail; Sun, 08 Jul
 2012 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.28.65 with SMTP id f41mr11880122eea.11.1341772359279;
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.28.65 with SMTP id f41mr11880121eea.11.1341772359258;
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com (mail-ee0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d52si21024580eei.1.2012.07.08.11.32.39
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.51;
Received: by eekc1 with SMTP id c1so3437941eek.38
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.27.136 with SMTP id e8mr9162822eea.157.1341772359047;
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z16sm27628326eef.16.2012.07.08.11.32.37
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FF9D244.4020603@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:32:36 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Is there any demand for LoCCan3?
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> <94270542-27d3-458e-af31-9361f81841cc@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <94270542-27d3-458e-af31-9361f81841cc@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.51 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

la gleki, On 07/07/2012 03:33:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:45:26 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
> 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=3D236029819851609&set=3Da.200050=
570116201.43269.100003337779349&type=3D1&theater&notif_t=3Dphoto_comment>
> on another critique of Lojban from the side semanticophils.

I've looked at that note, and I think it misunderstands what John Q is sayi=
ng. The point in the intro is about how the basic lexicon covers semantic s=
pace, i.e. how you select your inventory of basic morphemes, whereas the po=
int in the last chapter pertains to a kind of inventory of primitives for a=
 metalanguage for defining meanings (i.e. a Wierzickan-type enterprise). He=
's talking about two different things. Incidentally, I disagree with the id=
ea of a closed-set of primitives, as something philosophically untenable, t=
ho an open set of primitives is something I'm in favour of.

> 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.

That question can't really be answered without imagining an alternative mor=
phology. Suppose the parser worked strictly left-to-right with no lookahead=
, and we said that every V is word-final. Then if gismu were CCV, a form C1=
-[C2-C3-V] could be used to indicate that it was non-final in a compound, t=
he C1 being functionally equivalent to {zei}. But more importantly, the num=
ber of cmavo should be shrunk to the minimum, and the length of cmavo and g=
ismu should be inversely proportional to their frequency.

>     , make all gismu CCV -- becomes conciser and easier to learn in one g=
o.
>
> Yes, lowering signal-to-noise ratio even further ;)

Indeed. Concision is far more important than noise-resistance, and it is fa=
r easier to give a basically concise system an expanded noise-resistant ver=
sion than to give a basically verbose noise-resistant system a concise form=
.

>     Or discard almost all selmaho, default to Polish notation syntax,
>
> Can you provide us with any draft of such language?

It's not really worth the effort, since the feasibility of the system is pr=
etty obvious: ordinary predicate logic is consistent with Polish and Revers=
e Polish notations.I would insist on something that can be parsed increment=
ally left-to-right with no lookahead, which keeps everything simple.

>     and you have something much conciser, much more easy to learn, much m=
ore easy to parse. I suppose that even these changes are so drastic that th=
ey'd amount to discarding the current Loglan--Lojban entirely and starting =
over, but I think a complete redesign is anyway necessary because of the on=
e fundamental design challenge of a loglang, which is the challenge of repr=
esenting where two argument-places have the same value (e.g. in "John laugh=
ed and sneezed", where the argument-place of John(), of Laugh() and of Snee=
ze() 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 langua=
ge. But any new loglangs not having a parser just don't exist to me. They a=
re just projects, not working loglangs.

I don't know what counts as backward-compatibility. Xorxes's proposals prob=
ably strike a balance of worthwhileness and backward-compatibility. A "work=
ing parser" strikes me as an irrelevance: the parsing algorithm for an ergo=
nomic loglang should be so simple that its parsability should be self-evide=
nt.

--And.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.