Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:16:22 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
Message-ID: <20130611001622.GJ24964@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org>
 <1572136.Rc9a1FkyGG@caracal>
 <51B5AACD.8040106@gmx.de>
 <4765457.N8ok8LCe9x@caracal>
 <1370876772.5658.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20130610152640.GH24964@samsa.fritz.box>
 <1370882316.50803.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kr14OxHsRwZHHqxS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1370882316.50803.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--kr14OxHsRwZHHqxS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:38:36AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> anaphoric pronouns, reduplicated connectives, right ends of
> various constructions (to match the intentions, not just fit the rules).
> That'll do for starters and all of them about practical things.

None of these are discussed here, but I get what you mean.

> Whether cmevla are brevla is definitely not in the list;
> it is about saving a handful of lines in a grammar.

That was my point.

> Well, it depends upon what you mean by a real users group.
> I don't know what the figures are for Lojban (nor how they
> might be arrived at) but, at the moment, at least Klingon,
> Dothraki, Na'vi, and toki pona that I know of claim followings
> in the hundreds (again, I have no idea where the numbers come from).

No way, Dothraki is a fully specified and used language? %^D
Ok, sure, why not...

> As for simplicity, assuming there were some objective measure of that,
> I doubt that Lojban would do that well against, say, toki pona,
> even setting aside the problem of learning 10,000 words or so.

I was talking about full-fledged languages. :^D

> Even Esperanto is simpler -- for educated Westerners --
> than Lojban (even including vocab learning).

But less consistant to the best of my knowledge.
And not everybody is an educated Westerner.

> Don't worry about splitting the community; it never was nor ever could be=
 a unity.
> We will go on, squabbling every inch of the way and yet come up
> with a decent language at any given point and any given speaker.

Hehe, good to hear that.

> speaking as a logician, there is a right way,
> or at least several equally right ways, and as a result, a large number o=
f wrong ways.
> None of those are listed above but are high on my personal list.

Wow, I didn't think there are _still_ logicians who don't agree with Carnap=
 on that matter:

> "It is not our business to set up prohibitions, but to arrive at conventi=
ons...
> In logic there are no morals. Everyone is at liberty to build up his own =
logic,
> i.e. his own language, as he wishes. All that is required of him is that,
> if he wishes to discuss it, he must state his methods clearly, and give
> syntactical rules instead of philosophical arguments."
-- The Logical Syntax of Language, =C2=A717 (1937)


v4hn

--kr14OxHsRwZHHqxS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlG2bFYACgkQMBKLZs4+wjySRwCgt99GZSmyvDgwxK14Qsf75/bE
gtgAni1iAS5k0qgI21Pl+z8E0RUnP38M
=qSYd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--kr14OxHsRwZHHqxS--