Received: from mail-da0-f55.google.com ([209.85.210.55]:42231) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UWV6X-0000uH-Ee for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:46 -0700 Received: by mail-da0-f55.google.com with SMTP id o9sf1190524dan.10 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=bO1YRENTpECV0IHC+DMqtkh2+1X7cMAN6EyDXCQKkVw=; b=cQa8TGcpLxv/f5my3khpiYmTPLOU9CE9FjKbwmynbyM8WPhy+1QQxEei+yHcC7kdoZ O1hsGYck//e9Yw+Nd4ONnXDEwPi1hHHSDbqlg5h2VIj6OXWiLIRSwK7qPjl8a8LaMB8G Hob82rMaYGBZIhe0jATaXs0a7FzKUbeqEbVUvbpIP3MWGRA11ecGXm8bZhXb6VMBT+nU xZCfVMvxOrlYD4K3L04kA/5y2FQaw2wE8oY3wBGOXmt8QlF6zyKA8uOS+XXrMi2nw9vc BNuwp9RYKQKrm4a0xnNlFfVTkcgm7Ej5FB3kXfXZl18JsKWbadeihONvnT94StBqjbuB mi4A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=bO1YRENTpECV0IHC+DMqtkh2+1X7cMAN6EyDXCQKkVw=; b=YnSbpcpInlQrCJNvWiAXA/yeOQCg8S83KgbUm/JdB3/e6l1oN7PofH0Nf6RQwtQGMf RdFJx+G0797pn84bpKrdXoBa2RqBRQKB/Lr5p4xRKERMUjTuSJWO2tCjDsALP/KqjikP 0FrkOqHOjPgddUHf01LhEAy/5OA/bpWQ2qvz6ISIXZqYSelX2LOZrvahWYnj3DKJ4+Du 1PSoHB7hs6zw/blmzA7la7xC8KXe15MdW4RsQGJKC+ZZ7vCwo4pnx3D+uIrACF3MSI7e U4uxtZY5T3AE5uCtHC236ZhgV00f3nuQl4o/lMt0ezVKGWG8TilbcZaeCmNo1L/TxBb1 LFCg== X-Received: by 10.50.50.205 with SMTP id e13mr1121312igo.4.1367168971157; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.1.104 with SMTP id 8ls1442590igl.1.gmail; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.112.72 with SMTP id er8mr38934883icc.1.1367168970192; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j7si1043994igc.3.2013.04.28.10.09.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232; Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id aq17so6433644iec.23 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.57.200 with SMTP id k8mr5859197igq.44.1367168969990; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.130.5 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:09:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:09:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Mad Proposals From: Remo Dentato To: lojban X-Original-Sender: rdentato@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdentato@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=14dae9340f8bcde75704db6ed4fc X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --14dae9340f8bcde75704db6ed4fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm all in favour of any semplification of connectives. As they are, I think it's an absolute nightmare :). Of course it will need to be reflected in the formal grammar (which I believe is the PEG one at this point in time). xorxes, do you still support that proposal? remod On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM, stevo wrote: > 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. > > > -- 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. --14dae9340f8bcde75704db6ed4fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm all in favour of any semplification of c= onnectives. As they are, I think it's an absolute nightmare :).
Of course it will need to be reflected in the formal grammar (which I be= lieve is the PEG one at this point in time).
xorxes, do you still support that proposal?

remod


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM= , stevo <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
I whole-heartedly support this change. I'= ;m not a regular user of Lojban, though.=A0

stevo
On Monday, March 7, 1994 10:32:51 PM UTC-5, Jorge Llambias wrote: This posting contains proposals regarding some extensions and/or
replace= ments to the logical and non-logical connectives system.

Lojban Central i= s unanimously opposed to it, but does not mind my
posting it for your pe= rusal. 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 c= ounterarguments 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
selma= ho JOI, {je} for all of selmaho JA, etc. Since by definition
all the mem= bers of a selmaho have the same grammar, this makes
the discussion easie= r.

(The proposals are called "mad" for historical reasons.)


MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1:

Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} is allow= ed.

RATIONALE:

{je} and {joi}, the basic logical and non-logica= l connectives
(BIAS ALARM: {je} is being called the basic logical connective),
have ve= ry similar grammar. However, there are a few places where
{joi} is allow= ed, 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:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 le xunre joi blanu bolci (the red = mixed-and blue ball)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 le xunre je blanu bolci (the red an= d blue ball)

are both legal, but:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 mi joi do
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = *mi je do

The second one is illegal. The corresponding grammatical st= ructure is:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 mi .e do

Why is the {je} form illeg= al? Because to link sumti in general, we'd
have to use lots of {ku}'s:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 le ninmu ku joi le na= nmu
vs.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 le ninmu .e le nanmu

with {je} we'd= have to use {ku}, just like we do with {joi}:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 *le ni= nmu ku je le nanmu

My point is that, since we have to use {ku}'s with {joi}'s anywa= y,
why not allow the {je} versions to be legal. The {.e} version wouldstill be there when needed.

(At this point I should say that John h= as 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 nanm= u}. 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, logicalconnectives are not more significant than non-logical ones.

(BTW, t= he 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 restri= ction. It goes well with the many stones
for one bird philosophy, becaus= e it allows more than one way to say
the same thing. It doesn't introduce any weird interpretation of
any= thing, 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 simplici= ty (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: peop= le 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}&#= 39;s by {gije}'s, and extend the grammar to allow {gijoi}'s
in the same function of bridi-tail connection.

RATIONALE:

A who= le selmaho with 5 cmavo, of type {gi'e}, is eliminated, and replacedby 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 afterthough= t form is made to look just like the one for whole
bridi:

.ije =A0(for a whole bridi)
gije =A0(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 co= nnectives
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 o= f the same form, instead of today's variety:

je gi .... gi .... = =A0(instead of =A0 =A0ge ... gi ...)
joigi .... gi .... =A0(as is now = =A0joigi ... gi ...)

je gu .... gu .... =A0(instead of =A0gu'e ... gi ...)
joigu .... = gu .... =A0(no current equivalent)


MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4:

C= hange {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 con= nectives: A, JA, GA, GIhA, GUhA
=A0 we are left with a single one: JA (p= lus A in case we want to spare ku's,
=A0 but cut the flow of our speech)

- We eliminate 15 (yes, you read = correctly: fifteen!) cmavo:
=A0 ga, ge, go, je'i, ge'i, gi'a= , gi'e, gi'i, gi'o, gi'u, gu'a,
=A0 gu'e, gu'= ;i, gu'o, gu'u.

- We lose no expressive power. Every feature of the current language is<= br>=A0 preserved, and the only small drawback is two syllables instead of o= ne
=A0 for the forethought logical connectives.

- We gain two prev= iously non-existing forms for the non-logical
=A0 connectives: afterthought bridi-tail, and forethought tanru.

- As= a result, logical and non-logical connectives are equal, and there
=A0 = is complete regularity between them. They could almost be put into the
= =A0 same selmaho if it wasn't for a small difference in how {na} and {n= ai}
=A0 affect them.

The price to pay is that people who have already lea= rned 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 st= ill learning, and for
the future generations, it would be a great gain.

If you are in favou= r of regularity and simplicity, now is the time to
speak up!

(I= 9;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.
T= he fact that Nick is also not connected is also coincidental. Really!)

<= p>

=

<= /blockquote>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
=A0
=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--14dae9340f8bcde75704db6ed4fc--