Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::240 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::240;
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 04:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Cc: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>, jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU, 
	jorge@phyast.pitt.edu, lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <dd371f0d-b8b5-42f7-b0fd-ca0a82062b45@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_1951_12887018.1375789750571"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1951_12887018.1375789750571
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

1. Now I disagree on using {JAgu} instead of {gu'e}. As someone said on IRC 
if {GUhA} is almost useless then why assigning it a probably precious CV 
cmavo {gu}?
2. As for GIhA it should be retained for backward compatibility. {gije} 
would be just a more rational and preferrable alternative. 
3. May be retain A for the same purposes.

If the third item is applied then such policy will break almost no previous 
usage.


On Tuesday, March 8, 1994 7:32:51 AM UTC+4, 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


------=_Part_1951_12887018.1375789750571
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1. Now I disagree on using {JAgu} instead of {gu'e}. As someone said on IRC=
 if {GUhA} is almost useless then why assigning it a probably precious CV c=
mavo {gu}?<div>2. As for GIhA it should be retained for backward compatibil=
ity. {gije} would be just a more rational and preferrable alternative.&nbsp=
;</div><div>3. May be retain A for the same purposes.</div><div><br></div><=
div>If the third item is applied then such policy will break almost no prev=
ious usage.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>On Tuesday, Mar=
ch 8, 1994 7:32:51 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left: 1ex;">This posting contains proposals regarding some extensio=
ns and/or<br>replacements to the logical and non-logical connectives system=
.<p>Lojban Central is unanimously opposed to it, but does not mind my<br>po=
sting it for your perusal. If public opinion is strongly in<br>favour they =
may consider it again (they say), so get paper and pen<br>ready and start w=
riting to your senator.</p><p>I will also present some of the counterargume=
nts to the proposal, 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 members of a selmaho have the same grammar, this makes<br>the discu=
ssion easier.</p><p>(The proposals are called "mad" for historical reasons.=
)</p><p><br>MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1:</p><p>Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} i=
s allowed.</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>{je} and {joi}, the basic logical and non=
-logical connectives<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 struct=
ures 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 bal=
l)<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; le xunre je blanu bolci (the red and blue=
 ball)</p><p>are 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 corresponding grammatical structure is:</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n=
bsp; 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; &nb=
sp; le ninmu ku 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 {j=
oi}:</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *le ninmu ku je le nanmu</p><p>My po=
int is that, since we have to use {ku}'s with {joi}'s anyway,<br>why not al=
low the {je} versions 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 propo=
sals through<br>the YACC, and there were no problems with that.)</p><p>One =
argument against, is that people will generalize from {mi je do}<br>to {le =
ninmu je le nanmu}. My response to that is that then people<br>will general=
ize from {mi joi do} to {le ninmu joi le nanmu}, so that<br>is not a new pr=
oblem. The reply that {joi}'s are less central to Lojban<br>is not convinci=
ng to me, because I think that in real speech, logical<br>connectives are n=
ot more significant than non-logical ones.</p><p>(BTW, the ku-less form is =
illegal only because the parser can't handle<br>it, not because it generate=
s any ambiguity.)</p><p>In short: Proposal 1 is not a change, but simply an=
 extension that<br>removes an unnecessary restriction. It goes well with th=
e many stones<br>for one bird philosophy, because it allows more than one w=
ay to say<br>the 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 redu=
ndant. Just like {joigi} serves currently as the<br>forethought non-logical=
 connective, {jegi} would do for the logical one.</p><p>The trade-off for t=
he simplicity (we'll end up with only one series<br>of logical connectors w=
hen we're through, instead of the current 5)<br>is that they have two sylla=
bles instead of one.</p><p>My argument was that since they're forethought c=
onnectives, that<br>doesn't matter: people are supposed to think more and t=
hus take<br>more time when using forethought. This didn't seem to be convin=
cing<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 bridi-tail connection.</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>A whole selmaho w=
ith 5 cmavo, of type {gi'e}, is eliminated, and replaced<br>by the almost i=
dentical compound cmavo of type {gije}, with the same<br>number of syllable=
s. This requires almost no relearning.</p><p>As a bonus, afterthought bridi=
-tail connection (this is what {gi'e}'s do)<br>is also possible for the non=
-logical connectives.</p><p>Also, the afterthought form is made to look jus=
t like the one for whole<br>bridi:</p><p>.ije &nbsp;(for a whole bridi)<br>=
gije &nbsp;(for 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 {g=
u'e}'s and replace them by {guje}'s. Also allow {gujoi}'s<br>to fullfill th=
e same function for non-logical connectives.</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>Again, =
5 cmavo eliminated. This time a new one {gu}, parallel to {gi}<br>is introd=
uced (we eliminated 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 wi=
th a substitute.</p><p>{guje}'s would be most similar to the current form, =
but {jegu}'s<br>would be the logical choice. Then forethought connectives w=
ould all<br>be of the same form, instead of today's variety:</p><p>je gi ..=
.. gi .... &nbsp;(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 selmah=
o A to selamho JA</p><p>RATIONALE:</p><p>This one is just to round everythi=
ng off. The question 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 are left with a single one: JA (plus A in case we want to spar=
e ku's,<br>&nbsp; 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, gi'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<b=
r>&nbsp; preserved, and the only small drawback is two syllables instead of=
 one<br>&nbsp; for the forethought logical connectives.</p><p>- We gain two=
 previously non-existing forms for the non-logical<br>&nbsp; connectives: a=
fterthought bridi-tail, and forethought tanru.</p><p>- As a result, logical=
 and non-logical connectives are equal, and there<br>&nbsp; is complete reg=
ularity between them. They could almost be put into the<br>&nbsp; same selm=
aho if it wasn't for a small difference in how {na} and {nai}<br>&nbsp; aff=
ect them.</p><p>The price to pay is that people who have already learned th=
e 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 learnin=
g, and for<br>the future generations, it would be a great gain.</p><p>If yo=
u are in favour of regularity and simplicity, now is the time to<br>speak u=
p!</p><p>(I'm considering becoming a preacher.)</p><p>Jorge</p><p>(The fact=
 that this proposal is presented while Colin is off the list,<br>and I susp=
ect he would be against any changes, is purely coincidental.<br>The fact th=
at Nick is also 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">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</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_1951_12887018.1375789750571--