Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:59415)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKOXn8wTEJWi-f8EGgS8MmaO@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SpAvU-0002sA-9v; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:22:55 -0700
Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2sf2345730pbb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:22:46 -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=YeDnEVfbIRvyLqU4e+9TImYnG3aiBCgtPjlITbradJ8=;
        b=R4UU/rsKiO6+za/r2mrxpZ4KLMINXTBzp2FhjjhlkSfr0XTmpMPyyR9QbDg3lPQOaK
         FO7+WLmKnu7BdTiVX+vCjL/3l/svzuHwlSrXPw0vzRKATYiRmvbkbEoSm+7hq2VJsTar
         /tsHM7EJjjspltQa2bzXTs+HaICmGor5UckMQ=
Received: by 10.52.94.147 with SMTP id dc19mr3070226vdb.17.1342066965792;
        Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.88.68 with SMTP id be4ls822681vdb.3.gmail; Wed, 11 Jul 2012
 21:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.34.9 with SMTP id v9mr3600292vdi.9.1342066964890;
        Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <237c4ac5-64f3-40fa-81d3-8a97c76dcc5d@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FFDC7C8.2010707@gmail.com>
References: <90a7e54c-42fe-4ee0-9693-8155db9a7646@googlegroups.com> <f5113f81-1797-4d4b-8c39-2d96ed42cfa2@googlegroups.com>
 <4FFDC7C8.2010707@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_1753_19906614.1342066964399"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1753_19906614.1342066964399
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:36:56 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> la gleki, On 11/07/2012 08:41: 
> > Let's name 
> > Loglan = LoCCan 1.0 
> > Lojban = LoCCan 2.0 
> > Lojban after xorlo reform = LoCCan 2.1 
>
> As I understand it, Lojban was more of a fork from Loglan than an 
> improvement of it -- essentially a Loglan relex with some other subsequent 
> mostly gratuitous changes. 
>
> Nevertheless, your terminology is convenient. 
>
Let's make it more clear
Loglan = LoCCan v. 1.0 - 1.9
Lojban = LoCCan v. 2.0 - 2.9
Lojban after xorlo reform = LoCCan v. 2.1 

So changing the first number loses compatibility.


> > 1. Backward-incompatible And Rosta's project of CCV-gismu equal to 
> > rafsi and CCVrCCV lujvo where "r" is a buffer consonant. 
>
> [I had in mind this "r" being any consonant, not just /r/.] 
>
yes, let's use your "C1" symbol then.

>
> This lowers 
> > signal-to-noise ratio but makes learning rafsi=gismu much easier (no 
> > separate forms for gismu/rafsi). This can possibly remove the need in 
> > many modal tags that are actually duplicates and compressed versions 
> > of gismu 
>
> I have no such project. The CCV thing was just an idea tossed out, as one 
> of the many easy ways of improving on Lojban. 
>
Sorry, stevo and And Rosta. I should have removed your names from the 
preliminary analysis.

>
> If I was asked for advice on LoCCan3, it'd be this, in the first instance: 
>
> Discard the LoCCan2 syntax, then start with predicate logic, and enrich it 
> only with what predicate logic can't express or accommodate. Insist on the 
> syntax being incrementally parsable with no lookahead, where parsability 
> means recovering the logical form, not merely assigning some meaningless 
> structure to surface phonology, as in the current so-called parser. 
>
> Apply some sort of Huffman-encoding type scheme to at least morphemes 
> (possibly to morpheme strings). Possibly temper this by the desirability of 
> having some sort of phonosemantic patterning among morphemes, for mnemonic 
> purposes. 
>
> That's not be the end of my advice, but it'd be the key bits. 
>
> HOWEVER, I think that a LoCCan3 that did that would still not be good 
> enough, and I don't see much point in investing a lot of effort into 
> creating a language whose design is miles better than Lojban's but is still 
> not fit for purpose. (I suppose that if future research were to show that 
> the fundamental loglang problem is insoluble, then one would after all want 
> the best possible LoCCan version, as the language least unfit for purpose.) 
>  To apprehend the fundamental loglang problem, imagine Lojban without 
> {zo'e}, and then try to think how it could be redesigned to avoid being 
> impossibly longwinded and impossibly taxing on the memory of (especially) 
> the hearer/reader. 
>
No clue. Either you memorise FA in Lojban or you memorise prepositions for 
each verb in natlang. pe'i, the lojbanic solution is better.

>
> > And Rosta's suggests relexing gismu. Still lujvo in eir language will 
> > have no internal predicate structure. 
>
> Quite so. Since simplex brivla (gismu) would already have maximally short 
> forms, complex brivla (lujvo) would be necessary only when the forms were 
> not semantically compositional, i.e. when the meaning of the whole is not 
> completely predictable from the meaning of the parts. The morphological 
> translucence (semicompositionality) of lujvo would serve a merely mnemonic 
> purpose. 
>
> > Rafybri compress some bridi preserving sumti places between two or 
> > more gismu. They are equivalent in meaning to some lujvo but donot 
> > require learning them by rot. However, ordinary lujvo retain broken 
> > vague ambiguous internal structure of tanru with no places. I don't 
> > think And Rosta's CCV suggestion is much better than rafybri (rafybri 
> > can be used immediately as they add new rules but donot destroy any 
> > old rules). But let's wait until ey presents something. 
>
> For the reasons given above, rafybri would be redundant in a well-designed 
> loglan. Or, to put it a different way, a well designed loglan would use 
> something akin to rafybri as its basic device. 

Better to say in Loccan 2.0-2.9=Lojban then to move to Loccan >=3.0 

>  


> --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/-/4el3rthFiK0J.
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_1753_19906614.1342066964399
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:36:56 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:<blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-=
left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la gleki, On 11/07/2012 08:41:
<br>&gt; Let's name
<br>&gt; Loglan =3D LoCCan 1.0
<br>&gt; Lojban =3D LoCCan 2.0
<br>&gt; Lojban after xorlo reform =3D LoCCan 2.1
<br>
<br>As I understand it, Lojban was more of a fork from Loglan than an impro=
vement of it -- essentially a Loglan relex with some other subsequent mostl=
y gratuitous changes.
<br>
<br>Nevertheless, your terminology is convenient.
<br></blockquote><div>Let's make it more clear</div><div><div>Loglan =3D Lo=
CCan v. 1.0 - 1.9</div><div>Lojban =3D LoCCan v. 2.0 - 2.9</div><div>Lojban=
 after xorlo reform =3D LoCCan v. 2.1&nbsp;</div></div><div><br></div><div>=
So changing the first number loses compatibility.</div><div><br></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-l=
eft: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>&gt; 1. Backward-incompatible And Rosta's project of CCV-gismu equal to
<br>&gt; rafsi and CCVrCCV lujvo where "r" is a buffer consonant.
<br>
<br>[I had in mind this "r" being any consonant, not just /r/.]
<br></blockquote><div>yes, let's use your "C1" symbol then.</div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: =
1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>This lowers
<br>&gt; signal-to-noise ratio but makes learning rafsi=3Dgismu much easier=
 (no
<br>&gt; separate forms for gismu/rafsi). This can possibly remove the need=
 in
<br>&gt; many modal tags that are actually duplicates and compressed versio=
ns
<br>&gt; of gismu
<br>
<br>I have no such project. The CCV thing was just an idea tossed out, as o=
ne of the many easy ways of improving on Lojban.
<br></blockquote><div>Sorry, stevo and And Rosta. I should have removed you=
r names from the preliminary analysis.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<br>If I was asked for advice on LoCCan3, it'd be this, in the first instan=
ce:
<br>
<br>Discard the LoCCan2 syntax, then start with predicate logic, and enrich=
 it only with what predicate logic can't express or accommodate. Insist on =
the syntax being incrementally parsable with no lookahead, where parsabilit=
y means recovering the logical form, not merely assigning some meaningless =
structure to surface phonology, as in the current so-called parser.
<br>
<br>Apply some sort of Huffman-encoding type scheme to at least morphemes (=
possibly to morpheme strings). Possibly temper this by the desirability of =
having some sort of phonosemantic patterning among morphemes, for mnemonic =
purposes.
<br>
<br>That's not be the end of my advice, but it'd be the key bits.
<br>
<br>HOWEVER, I think that a LoCCan3 that did that would still not be good e=
nough, and I don't see much point in investing a lot of effort into creatin=
g a language whose design is miles better than Lojban's but is still not fi=
t for purpose. (I suppose that if future research were to show that the fun=
damental loglang problem is insoluble, then one would after all want the be=
st possible LoCCan version, as the language least unfit for purpose.) &nbsp=
;To apprehend the fundamental loglang problem, imagine Lojban without {zo'e=
}, and then try to think how it could be redesigned to avoid being impossib=
ly longwinded and impossibly taxing on the memory of (especially) the heare=
r/reader.
<br></blockquote><div>No clue. Either you memorise FA in Lojban or you memo=
rise prepositions for each verb in natlang. pe'i, the lojbanic solution is =
better.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-le=
ft: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>&gt; And Rosta's suggests relexing gismu. Still lujvo in eir language w=
ill
<br>&gt; have no internal predicate structure.
<br>
<br>Quite so. Since simplex brivla (gismu) would already have maximally sho=
rt forms, complex brivla (lujvo) would be necessary only when the forms wer=
e not semantically compositional, i.e. when the meaning of the whole is not=
 completely predictable from the meaning of the parts. The morphological tr=
anslucence (semicompositionality) of lujvo would serve a merely mnemonic pu=
rpose.
<br>
<br>&gt; Rafybri compress some bridi preserving sumti places between two or
<br>&gt; more gismu. They are equivalent in meaning to some lujvo but donot
<br>&gt; require learning them by rot. However, ordinary lujvo retain broke=
n
<br>&gt; vague ambiguous internal structure of tanru with no places. I don'=
t
<br>&gt; think And Rosta's CCV suggestion is much better than rafybri (rafy=
bri
<br>&gt; can be used immediately as they add new rules but donot destroy an=
y
<br>&gt; old rules). But let's wait until ey presents something.
<br>
<br>For the reasons given above, rafybri would be redundant in a well-desig=
ned loglan. Or, to put it a different way, a well designed loglan would use=
 something akin to rafybri as its basic device.&nbsp;</blockquote><div>Bett=
er to say in Loccan 2.0-2.9=3DLojban then to move to Loccan &gt;=3D3.0&nbsp=
;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.=
8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">&nbsp;</blockquote><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 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/-/4el3rthFiK0J">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/4e=
l3rthFiK0J</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_1753_19906614.1342066964399--