Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:37351) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SvPOa-00020v-6i; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:02:48 -0700 Received: by yenl13 with SMTP id l13sf5296113yen.16 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:02:33 -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: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=iz9y6KqIgsHHzAlMZybm4wcwpwTUAmWHiLeWxLEqsCY=; b=AfZh7PkgFyVMxlhSythQMxuNnQROeKIvVWElwblu6QwbRU+N29eajmlW05m4mt+OFN PANUsqvggzpVvy+aT1h+ODPQwrEVDWNRDSbSbwQvlZNiotTAiE58KkGI/6Ll+i5/JaQ0 ZqHnJIf+rVwzSzAztm7BdqE5ZT91f5FztPul0= Received: by 10.52.71.7 with SMTP id q7mr683092vdu.20.1343552553345; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:02:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.66.242 with SMTP id i18ls3093914vdt.5.gmail; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.155.207 with SMTP id vy15mr746015vdb.13.1343552552246; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <1f5a4015-2150-46d6-804e-6f6c43c9acfa@googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban] What's the current situation with Chomsky's grammar for Lojban? 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_646_5888146.1343552551705" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_646_5888146.1343552551705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just short citation from http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/swh.txt 115. lojbab: (responding to 106.) The claim I made is that John Parks-Clifford, a linguist involved with Loglan since 1975, told me that he investigated 1970's Loglan using TG techniques during the 70's and was able to demonstrate to his own satisfaction that all features of Loglan were amenable to TG analysis, and that he found no 'unusual' transforms. More recently, a student in Cleveland has been attempting to develop a more formal TG description of the language. This will undoubtedly take a while, but he reported to me earlier this year that not only had he found nothing unusual, he had identified some elegant features of the language using TG techniques. The features he reported are indeed con- sistent with the language definition, and included aspects that the student had not been taught (i.e. that we had not put into any published documents that the student had received. So where is that description by a student from Cleveland? What's that unusual in Lojban grammar? Have there been other attempts to describe our beloved badna bangu? -- 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/-/HMVkQlJMvtYJ. 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_646_5888146.1343552551705 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just short citation from  http://www.lojba= n.org/files/why-lojban/swh.txt
115. lojbab: (responding to 106.)=
  The claim I made is that John Parks-Clifford,
a =
linguist involved with Loglan	since 1975, told me that he investigated 1970=
's
Loglan using TG	techniques during the 70's and w=
as able	to demonstrate to his
own satisfaction that=
 all features of Loglan were amenable to TG analysis, and
<= pre style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-w= rap; ">that he found no 'unusual' transforms. More recently, a student in C= leveland
has been attempting to develop a more form=
al TG	description of the language.
This will undoub=
tedly take a while, but	he reported to me earlier this year that
not only had he	found nothing unusual, he had identified some=
 elegant features
of the language	using TG techniqu=
es.  The features he reported are indeed con-
siste=
nt	with the language definition, and included aspects that	the student had<=
/pre>
not been taught	(i.e. that we had not put into any =
published documents that the
student	had received.<=
/pre>

So where is that description by= a student from Cleveland?
What's that unusual in Lojban grammar?=
Have there been other attempts to describe our beloved badna ban= gu? 

--
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/-/HM= VkQlJMvtYJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_646_5888146.1343552551705--