Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: stevo <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <e3313328-1478-4e76-97df-fd89fcaa19f5@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <m0pe2eX-0000R2C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
References: <m0pe2eX-0000R2C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Subject: [lojban] Re: The Mad Proposals
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_4370_18816475.1367167091335"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_4370_18816475.1367167091335
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I whole-heartedly support this change. I'm not a regular user of Lojban, 
though. 

stevo

On Monday, March 7, 1994 10:32:51 PM UTC-5, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>
> This posting contains proposals regarding some extensions and/or
> replacements to the logical and non-logical connectives system.
>
> Lojban Central is unanimously opposed to it, but does not mind my
> posting it for your perusal. If public opinion is strongly in
> favour they may consider it again (they say), so get paper and pen
> ready and start writing to your senator.
>
> I will also present some of the counterarguments to the proposal, but
> you can be certain that it will be in a biased manner.
>
> I will use {joi} to refer to all the non-logical connectives of
> selmaho JOI, {je} for all of selmaho JA, etc. Since by definition
> all the members of a selmaho have the same grammar, this makes
> the discussion easier.
>
> (The proposals are called "mad" for historical reasons.)
>
>
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1:
>
> Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} is allowed.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> {je} and {joi}, the basic logical and non-logical connectives
> (BIAS ALARM: {je} is being called the basic logical connective),
> have very similar grammar. However, there are a few places where
> {joi} is allowed, but {je} is not.
>
> This restriction doesn't stop us from being able to say anything,
> because there are other structures provided to cope with those functions.
>
> For instance:
>
>         le xunre joi blanu bolci (the red mixed-and blue ball)
>         le xunre je blanu bolci (the red and blue ball)
>
> are both legal, but:
>
>         mi joi do
>         *mi je do
>
> The second one is illegal. The corresponding grammatical structure is:
>
>         mi .e do
>
> Why is the {je} form illegal? Because to link sumti in general, we'd
> have to use lots of {ku}'s:
>
>         le ninmu ku joi le nanmu
> vs.
>         le ninmu .e le nanmu
>
> with {je} we'd have to use {ku}, just like we do with {joi}:
>
>         *le ninmu ku je le nanmu
>
> My point is that, since we have to use {ku}'s with {joi}'s anyway,
> why not allow the {je} versions to be legal. The {.e} version would
> still be there when needed.
>
> (At this point I should say that John has ran the proposals through
> the YACC, and there were no problems with that.)
>
> One argument against, is that people will generalize from {mi je do}
> to {le ninmu je le nanmu}. My response to that is that then people
> will generalize from {mi joi do} to {le ninmu joi le nanmu}, so that
> is not a new problem. The reply that {joi}'s are less central to Lojban
> is not convincing to me, because I think that in real speech, logical
> connectives are not more significant than non-logical ones.
>
> (BTW, the ku-less form is illegal only because the parser can't handle
> it, not because it generates any ambiguity.)
>
> In short: Proposal 1 is not a change, but simply an extension that
> removes an unnecessary restriction. It goes well with the many stones
> for one bird philosophy, because it allows more than one way to say
> the same thing. It doesn't introduce any weird interpretation of
> anything, it's a natural extension that I bet fluent speakers will
> make, whether the parser likes it or not.
>
>
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1 part B:
>
> Eliminate selmaho GA.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> They become redundant. Just like {joigi} serves currently as the
> forethought non-logical connective, {jegi} would do for the logical one.
>
> The trade-off for the simplicity (we'll end up with only one series
> of logical connectors when we're through, instead of the current 5)
> is that they have two syllables instead of one.
>
> My argument was that since they're forethought connectives, that
> doesn't matter: people are supposed to think more and thus take
> more time when using forethought. This didn't seem to be convincing
> enough, though.
>
>
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2:
>
> Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}'s, and extend the grammar to allow {gijoi}'s
> in the same function of bridi-tail connection.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> A whole selmaho with 5 cmavo, of type {gi'e}, is eliminated, and replaced
> by the almost identical compound cmavo of type {gije}, with the same
> number of syllables. This requires almost no relearning.
>
> As a bonus, afterthought bridi-tail connection (this is what {gi'e}'s do)
> is also possible for the non-logical connectives.
>
> Also, the afterthought form is made to look just like the one for whole
> bridi:
>
> .ije  (for a whole bridi)
> gije  (for bridi-tail)
>
> same as
>
> .ijoi (existing)
> gijoi (currently not possible)
>
>
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 3:
>
> Eliminate {gu'e}'s and replace them by {guje}'s. Also allow {gujoi}'s
> to fullfill the same function for non-logical connectives.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> Again, 5 cmavo eliminated. This time a new one {gu}, parallel to {gi}
> is introduced (we eliminated its previous function in 1b, right?)
>
> In case you don't remember, {gu'e}'s serve as forethought connectives
> within tanru. IMHO a useless construction, but since they're there, we
> provide them with a substitute.
>
> {guje}'s would be most similar to the current form, but {jegu}'s
> would be the logical choice. Then forethought connectives would all
> be of the same form, instead of today's variety:
>
> je gi .... gi ....  (instead of    ge ... gi ...)
> joigi .... gi ....  (as is now  joigi ... gi ...)
>
> je gu .... gu ....  (instead of  gu'e ... gi ...)
> joigu .... gu ....  (no current equivalent)
>
>
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4:
>
> Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho JA
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> This one is just to round everything off. The question connective becomes
> regular.
>
>
> -------------------- END OF PROPOSALS ----------------------
>
> The net result is:
>
> - Instead of five series of logical connectives: A, JA, GA, GIhA, GUhA
>   we are left with a single one: JA (plus A in case we want to spare ku's,
>   but cut the flow of our speech)
>
> - We eliminate 15 (yes, you read correctly: fifteen!) cmavo:
>   ga, ge, go, je'i, ge'i, gi'a, gi'e, gi'i, gi'o, gi'u, gu'a,
>   gu'e, gu'i, gu'o, gu'u.
>
> - We lose no expressive power. Every feature of the current language is
>   preserved, and the only small drawback is two syllables instead of one
>   for the forethought logical connectives.
>
> - We gain two previously non-existing forms for the non-logical
>   connectives: afterthought bridi-tail, and forethought tanru.
>
> - As a result, logical and non-logical connectives are equal, and there
>   is complete regularity between them. They could almost be put into the
>   same selmaho if it wasn't for a small difference in how {na} and {nai}
>   affect them.
>
> The price to pay is that people who have already learned the complicated
> system have to forget it and learn the simple one. (What? that's not
> an unbiased way to say it? :) For those who are still learning, and for
> the future generations, it would be a great gain.
>
> If you are in favour of regularity and simplicity, now is the time to
> speak up!
>
> (I'm considering becoming a preacher.)
>
> Jorge
>
> (The fact that this proposal is presented while Colin is off the list,
> and I suspect he would be against any changes, is purely coincidental.
> The fact that Nick is also not connected is also coincidental. Really!)
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


------=_Part_4370_18816475.1367167091335
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I whole-heartedly support this change. I'm not a regular user of Lojban, th=
ough.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>stevo<br><br>On Monday, March 7, 1994 10:32:=
51 PM UTC-5, Jorge Llambias wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: =
1ex;">This posting contains proposals regarding some extensions and/or<br>r=
eplacements to the logical and non-logical connectives system.<p>Lojban Cen=
tral is unanimously opposed to it, but does not mind my<br>posting it for y=
our perusal. If public opinion is strongly in<br>favour they may consider i=
t again (they say), so get paper and pen<br>ready and start writing to your=
 senator.</p><p>I will also present some of the counterarguments to the pro=
posal, but<br>you can be certain that it will be in a biased manner.</p><p>=
I will use {joi} to refer to all the non-logical connectives of<br>selmaho =
JOI, {je} for all of selmaho JA, etc. Since by definition<br>all the member=
s of a selmaho have the same grammar, this makes<br>the discussion easier.<=
/p><p>(The proposals are called "mad" for historical reasons.)</p><p><br>MA=
D PROPOSAL NUMBER 1:</p><p>Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} is allowed.</p>=
<p>RATIONALE:</p><p>{je} and {joi}, the basic logical and non-logical conne=
ctives<br>(BIAS ALARM: {je} is being called the basic logical connective),<=
br>have very similar grammar. However, there are a few places where<br>{joi=
} is allowed, but {je} is not.</p><p>This restriction doesn't stop us from =
being able to say anything,<br>because there are other structures provided =
to cope with those functions.</p><p>For instance:</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp=
; &nbsp; le xunre joi blanu bolci (the red mixed-and blue ball)<br>&nbsp; &=
nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; le xunre je blanu bolci (the red and blue ball)</p><p>a=
re both legal, but:</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mi joi do<br>&nbsp; &=
nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *mi je do</p><p>The second one is illegal. The correspo=
nding grammatical structure is:</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mi .e do<=
/p><p>Why is the {je} form illegal? Because to link sumti in general, we'd<=
br>have to use lots of {ku}'s:</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; le ninmu k=
u joi le nanmu<br>vs.<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; le ninmu .e le nanmu</=
p><p>with {je} we'd have to use {ku}, just like we do with {joi}:</p><p>&nb=
sp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *le ninmu ku je le nanmu</p><p>My point is that, s=
ince we have to use {ku}'s with {joi}'s anyway,<br>why not allow the {je} v=
ersions to be legal. The {.e} version would<br>still be there when needed.<=
/p><p>(At this point I should say that John has ran the proposals through<b=
r>the YACC, and there were no problems with that.)</p><p>One argument again=
st, is that people will generalize from {mi je do}<br>to {le ninmu je le na=
nmu}. My response to that is that then people<br>will generalize from {mi j=
oi do} to {le ninmu joi le nanmu}, so that<br>is not a new problem. The rep=
ly that {joi}'s are less central to Lojban<br>is not convincing to me, beca=
use I think that in real speech, logical<br>connectives are not more signif=
icant than non-logical ones.</p><p>(BTW, the ku-less form is illegal only b=
ecause the parser can't handle<br>it, not because it generates any ambiguit=
y.)</p><p>In short: Proposal 1 is not a change, but simply an extension tha=
t<br>removes an unnecessary restriction. It goes well with the many stones<=
br>for one bird philosophy, because it allows more than one way to say<br>t=
he same thing. It doesn't introduce any weird interpretation of<br>anything=
, it's a natural extension that I bet fluent speakers will<br>make, whether=
 the parser likes it or not.</p><p><br>MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1 part B:</p><p>=
Eliminate selmaho GA.</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>They become redundant. Just li=
ke {joigi} serves currently as the<br>forethought non-logical connective, {=
jegi} would do for the logical one.</p><p>The trade-off for the simplicity =
(we'll end up with only one series<br>of logical connectors when we're thro=
ugh, instead of the current 5)<br>is that they have two syllables instead o=
f one.</p><p>My argument was that since they're forethought connectives, th=
at<br>doesn't matter: people are supposed to think more and thus take<br>mo=
re time when using forethought. This didn't seem to be convincing<br>enough=
, though.</p><p><br>MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2:</p><p>Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}=
's, and extend the grammar to allow {gijoi}'s<br>in the same function of br=
idi-tail connection.</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>A whole selmaho with 5 cmavo, o=
f type {gi'e}, is eliminated, and replaced<br>by the almost identical compo=
und cmavo of type {gije}, with the same<br>number of syllables. This requir=
es almost no relearning.</p><p>As a bonus, afterthought bridi-tail connecti=
on (this is what {gi'e}'s do)<br>is also possible for the non-logical conne=
ctives.</p><p>Also, the afterthought form is made to look just like the one=
 for whole<br>bridi:</p><p>.ije &nbsp;(for a whole bridi)<br>gije &nbsp;(fo=
r bridi-tail)</p><p>same as</p><p>.ijoi (existing)<br>gijoi (currently not =
possible)</p><p><br>MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 3:</p><p>Eliminate {gu'e}'s and rep=
lace them by {guje}'s. Also allow {gujoi}'s<br>to fullfill the same functio=
n for non-logical connectives.</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>Again, 5 cmavo elimin=
ated. This time a new one {gu}, parallel to {gi}<br>is introduced (we elimi=
nated its previous function in 1b, right?)</p><p>In case you don't remember=
, {gu'e}'s serve as forethought connectives<br>within tanru. IMHO a useless=
 construction, but since they're there, we<br>provide them with a substitut=
e.</p><p>{guje}'s would be most similar to the current form, but {jegu}'s<b=
r>would be the logical choice. Then forethought connectives would all<br>be=
 of the same form, instead of today's variety:</p><p>je gi .... gi .... &nb=
sp;(instead of &nbsp; &nbsp;ge ... gi ...)<br>joigi .... gi .... &nbsp;(as =
is now &nbsp;joigi ... gi ...)</p><p>je gu .... gu .... &nbsp;(instead of &=
nbsp;gu'e ... gi ...)<br>joigu .... gu .... &nbsp;(no current equivalent)</=
p><p><br>MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4:</p><p>Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho=
 JA</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>This one is just to round everything off. The qu=
estion connective becomes<br>regular.</p><p><br>-------------------- END OF=
 PROPOSALS ----------------------</p><p>The net result is:</p><p>- Instead =
of five series of logical connectives: A, JA, GA, GIhA, GUhA<br>&nbsp; we a=
re left with a single one: JA (plus A in case we want to spare ku's,<br>&nb=
sp; but cut the flow of our speech)</p><p>- We eliminate 15 (yes, you read =
correctly: fifteen!) cmavo:<br>&nbsp; ga, ge, go, je'i, ge'i, gi'a, gi'e, g=
i'i, gi'o, gi'u, gu'a,<br>&nbsp; gu'e, gu'i, gu'o, gu'u.</p><p>- We lose no=
 expressive power. Every feature of the current language is<br>&nbsp; prese=
rved, and the only small drawback is two syllables instead of one<br>&nbsp;=
 for the forethought logical connectives.</p><p>- We gain two previously no=
n-existing forms for the non-logical<br>&nbsp; connectives: afterthought br=
idi-tail, and forethought tanru.</p><p>- As a result, logical and non-logic=
al connectives are equal, and there<br>&nbsp; is complete regularity betwee=
n them. They could almost be put into the<br>&nbsp; same selmaho if it wasn=
't for a small difference in how {na} and {nai}<br>&nbsp; affect them.</p><=
p>The price to pay is that people who have already learned the complicated<=
br>system have to forget it and learn the simple one. (What? that's not<br>=
an unbiased way to say it? :) For those who are still learning, and for<br>=
the future generations, it would be a great gain.</p><p>If you are in favou=
r of regularity and simplicity, now is the time to<br>speak up!</p><p>(I'm =
considering becoming a preacher.)</p><p>Jorge</p><p>(The fact that this pro=
posal is presented while Colin is off the list,<br>and I suspect he would b=
e against any changes, is purely coincidental.<br>The fact that Nick is als=
o not connected is also coincidental. Really!)<br></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>=
<p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></=
p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>=
</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><=
p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p=
><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><=
/p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

------=_Part_4370_18816475.1367167091335--