Received: from mail-pb0-f59.google.com ([209.85.160.59]:57929) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Wzlg1-00060Z-39 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:47:47 -0700 Received: by mail-pb0-f59.google.com with SMTP id ma3sf339777pbc.14 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:47:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=NQm0l4/MtNaBl80TxnHYaTNrF+FTp6rTcwtOYElnvQ0=; b=qJxQ3KQa8vYqyouxUyR7gaFJZOtaB3qatEhpZTfd0aFpwO0u3ydEn357/qILwkFwrL B40/B5yTYy0SvpTXlkDjw1nJ6uPEKScLnst2vVh5qNxfFz4yDd3DThcWEExScobU0vPy xvhIxLcX9G5WNVfsClV6htKce52Jq7niJZh3sEf0QTsWHW6A4xYMhVispeBzU7QTliy/ RvFLOW4KrTBqtl+P7jY0qUeoV5Soga/KKPijahPAUxq5g6CLb6v0YGait1X0sy8RMA0k ZNVkI6hRQVRDZaWftix7tHbhlRcnDamvTPfTp8Usb5xhWDq/xAaZ+UURboAnsTiizTC9 Gf3A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=NQm0l4/MtNaBl80TxnHYaTNrF+FTp6rTcwtOYElnvQ0=; b=yg2hyzOVC+u8dQtR+zy5/LUsQBfOoS4K5Z6eR6jqddnYUwZCiiqrJxLUIhu7OF5koq Cnrtv2c+N3NbOdsl6sd8zuwMe5O/D6l65Rx9V2RzeYwt6PW9eMHQUoxc0YAg6RV6vj+2 KQivStjGsnXnj46yJx27FsrjDc4CMyYkgSu1D5XZbPWjgSc4m54C/w1mBhlPyz7ROwwi rRqOIL/GKA9WVhwZAq0uyJjzZEv4tkIhJ3QJp1oQwM+a+omjWmtu0dJP2Uf/aylWtGAt fudVITlfYbxzqvpjqTYFtS/niD5mHBdxOiovW1Cf9TpUyMPibiI50+uXwkOdG2grDXaR pHXw== X-Received: by 10.50.77.112 with SMTP id r16mr204256igw.3.1403696858837; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:47:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.73.195 with SMTP id n3ls1114505igv.40.canary; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:47:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.51.17.71 with SMTP id gc7mr718188igd.7.1403696858342; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:47:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Browne To: lojban@googlegroups.com Cc: kali9putra@yahoo.com Message-Id: <273fe5a5-b80e-4df3-87b0-3c916ed920a9@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1402336485.50854.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <3854b8c6-4e18-4b76-9039-d1d5cdbcbb16@googlegroups.com> <1402323602.64243.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1402336485.50854.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] What are the official goals of lojban? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: dersaidin@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_1928_21136593.1403696856968" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_1928_21136593.1403696856968 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, PC. Your blog post makes a convincing argument that being=20 unambiguous, or what you are calling "monoparsing" (you are the only hit on= =20 google for this term, so I'll stick to the conventional terminology), is=20 lojban's most distinguishing feature, but I do not think that it answers=20 the question of goals. To summarize your unofficial response, the goals are: 1) to be a usable language 2) to be unambiguous 3) to be able to be mapped to a symbolic logic expression I think 1) and 2) are well stated goals. They are clear and simple, making= =20 it easy to see if they are being met or not. Your goals 2) and 3) seem like instrumental goals, rather than terminal=20 goals. When I posted the question, I tried to gather references, but avoid posting= =20 any interpretation of them since my interpretation is not relevant to the= =20 question of the official stance. Since the discussion is turning unofficial, I=E2=80=99ll offer my opinion. = These=20 are the bits in the references that I think/hope/expect best describe the= =20 goals: "enhancing the measurable performance of its learners" =E2=80=9Clanguage limits thought.=E2=80=9C =E2=80=9Ctake the suspected limits off, more precisely, to push them outwar= d in=20 some direction" =E2=80=9Cextremely logical.=E2=80=9D To state the goals in my own words: The goal of lojban is to be a usable language which enhances thought. - maximize facility for logical thought: clear, sound, consistent reasoning - minimize limitations on thought What do we mean by =E2=80=9Clogical=E2=80=9D?: - clarity is logical - consistency and regularity is logical - being systematic is logical - being objective and unbiased is logical What are limitations on thought?: - relative difficulty expressing relatively simple concepts - not allowing vagueness is a limitation; vagueness reduces limit of=20 minimal precision - ambiguity is a limitation on clarity Note: The goal of lojban is not to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However= =20 this hypothesis inspired lojban=E2=80=99s goals and lojban should be ideal = for=20 testing it. Note: Some people may advocate being =E2=80=9Crational=E2=80=9D over =E2=80= =9Clogical=E2=80=9D. The term=20 =E2=80=9Crational=E2=80=9D is not used in the goal statement with the view = that; logical=20 thought is required to evaluate and choose rational actions. Note: Ambiguousness is multiple possible distinct/unrelated meanings.=20 Vagueness is a single meaning, expressed with less precision. I think many of the instrumental goals and design features derive from=20 these goals. Stuff my goals (and notes) do not cover: - Does =E2=80=9Cenhances thought=E2=80=9D apply to learners, speakers, or t= hinkers? Is it=20 still expected to apply when they are not speaking/thinking in lojban? - Should the definition mention simplicity (or avoiding unnecessary=20 complexity) as an aspect of being logical? is that part of clarity?=20 =E2=80=9CSimplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Stability and backwards compatibility; is this part of usability? - The need?/goal? to specify/document much/all of the language. Other interesting points for this definition: - Viewing a team of people/computers as a single entity, communication=20 within that entity is part of thought. Communication as language may even= =20 be necessary within one brain (that is my unsupported speculation). Discussion aside, I still hope for an official answer to the question - and= =20 I think it is an important question deserving of one. Officially, what are the goals of lojban? Thanks, Andrew / DerSaidin On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:54:48 AM UTC+10, clifford wrote: > > vid: Lojban is monoparsing on pckipo.blogspot.com > > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban < > loj...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > =20 > > VERY unofficially, the goal of Lojban is to have a usable language which= =20 > is syntactically unambiguous, that is, is such that every grammatical=20 > utterance has a unique and correct parse (monoparsing, for short). If it= =20 > is not meeting this goal, Lojban is unduly complex for meeting whatever= =20 > other goals it may have (all of which are met more efficiently by other= =20 > constructed languages, most by even, say, toki pona). Lojban has some=20 > reason to claim that it meets this goal, at least that it has a grammar= =20 > that gives a unique parse to each grammatical sentence. What is less=20 > clearly demonstrated is that this parse is always correct in the sense th= at=20 > it maps directly onto a unique formula of symbolic logic, though this=20 > appears likely, given the care which has been devoted to details that suc= h=20 > a mapping would involve=20 > > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 8:54 AM, Andrew Browne > wrote: > =20 > > > What are the official goals of lojban? > > > It is important to have an understanding of the goals for ongoing work=20 > (finishing BPFK sections, etc.), otherwise we will end up with stuff that= =20 > is inconsistent. > I think many people involved have an implicit understanding of the goals,= =20 > due to having been around much longer, and/or closely involved in BPFK. > > I am after an official clear statement of goals for lojban (or reference= =20 > to one), for the benefit of those of us who have not been around for so= =20 > long (and clarification for everyone else). > > > > The best source I can find is the CLL: > https://dag.github.io/cll/1/1/ > > The goals for the language were first described in the open literature in= =20 > the article =E2=80=9CLoglan=E2=80=9D, published in Scientific American, J= une, 1960. > > =20 > > The following are the main features of Lojban: > Lojban is designed to be used by people in communication with each other,= =20 > and possibly in the future with computers. > Lojban is designed to be neutral between cultures. > Lojban grammar is based on the principles of predicate logic. > Lojban has an unambiguous yet flexible grammar. > Lojban has phonetic spelling, and unambiguously resolves its sounds into= =20 > words. > Lojban is simple compared to natural languages; it is easy to learn. > Lojban=E2=80=99s 1300 root words can be easily combined to form a vocabul= ary of=20 > millions of words. > Lojban is regular; the rules of the language are without exceptions. > Lojban attempts to remove restrictions on creative and clear thought and= =20 > communication. > Lojban has a variety of uses, ranging from the creative to the scientific= ,=20 > from the theoretical to the practical. > Lojban has been demonstrated in translation and in original works of pros= e=20 > and poetry. > > > > > I also found some other materials with similar lists of features, and a= =20 > similar reference to the goals of TLI Loglan: > http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DLojban_Introductory_Brochure > http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3Dralju_papri > > http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DFrom_Wikibooks:_Lojban/Introductio= n_to_Lojban#Lojban > > > There has also been some discussion of goals on this list: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/lojban/goals/lojban/jDRfYun5Rs= 4/o8LqJicWwyUJ > > > > > > > Several of these sources have referenced the goals of TLI Loglan. > So what are the goals of TLI Loglan? > > Note; I'm quoting the bits I think are possibly relevant to my question o= f=20 > goals, trying to provide a helpful summary. > Please read more of these documents to get more context or to add anythin= g=20 > else I missed. > > > > First, lets look in that 1960 Scientific American Article mentioned=20 > earlier: > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Scientific+American+article > http://members.home.nl/w.dijkhuis/loglan_jcb/Brown_JC_loglan.html > http://www.dersaidin.net/lojban/reference/LoglanScientificAmerican1960/= =20 > (mirror) > > It was to supply an instrument for experimental investigation of the=20 > Leibniz-Whorf hypothesis that we undertook our work on Loglan in 1955. > Loglan was to be an artificial language, but one especially designed to= =20 > test the thesis that the structure of language determines the forms of=20 > thought. > It was to have a small, easily learned vocabulary derived from the word= =20 > stock of as many of the major natural languages as proved feasible (thoug= h=20 > it was not intended to be an auxiliary international language). > Its rules of grammar and syntax were to be as few and regular as possible= . > It was to utilize a short list of speech sounds (phonemes) common to the= =20 > natural languages [see table on opposite page], and it was to be=20 > phonetically spelled. > > =20 > > But most important, Loglan was to incorporate as many of the notational= =20 > devices of modern logic and mathematics as could be adapted to its use.= =20 > > > > > > The other good source I found on TLI Loglan is this book, Loglan1 (which= =20 > appears to me to be the TLI Loglan equivalent of CLL): > https://ia700400.us.archive.org/11/items/Loglan1/Loglan1.pdf > http://www.dersaidin.net/lojban/reference/Loglan1.pdf (mirror) > > In chapter 1, there are sections 1 through 9 that cover a different goal= =20 > (or maybe feature/viewpoint). > > *1.1 The Scientific Strategy* > > Loglan is a language which was originally devised to test the Sapir-Whorf= =20 > hypothesis > that the structure of language determines the boundaries of human thought= . > > > The most promising way to create such a difference, it seemed to me, was= =20 > to exaggerate some=20 > natural function of human language, that is, to increase the functional= =20 > adequacy of some complex=20 > of linguistic structures in a way that would have a strong independent=20 > likelihood of enhancing=20 > the measurable performance of its learners on some specified set of tasks= .=20 > Besides, in its original=20 > formulation the Whorf hypothesis is a negative one: language limits=20 > thought. One way of=20 > disclosing such phenomena is to take the suspected limits off, more=20 > precisely, to push them=20 > outward in some direction in which removing limits would have predictable= =20 > effects. So it was=20 > settled. The diminutive language should also be a functionally extreme on= e=20 > in some known or=20 > presumable way: an extremely poetic one, say, or an extremely efficient= =20 > one, or extremely=20 > logical. > > > *1.2 Loglan as a Logical Language* > > But the claim invested in this metaphor is in fact narrower than the wide= =20 > word 'logical' suggests. Loglan is logical only in the sense of purportin= g=20 > to facilitate certain=20 > limited kinds of thought: namely those kinds which proceed by the=20 > transformation of sentences=20 > into other sentences in such a way that if the first are true so also are= =20 > the second. We might > also expect it to minimize, or help prevent, the errors that are usually= =20 > made in performing such=20 > deductive operations. But these are fairly modest senses of the word=20 > 'logical'. We might have=20 > meant to convey by it the much stronger claim that Loglan is a deductive= =20 > system, in the sense=20 > that geometry and formal logic are. To support such a claim we would have= =20 > had to show that=20 > Loglan had a set of elementary notions and elementary operations from=20 > which all its complex=20 > notions and complex operations had been rigorously derived. But we do not= =20 > make this claim. > > > *1.3 Loglan as a Laboratory Instrument* > > Apart from the thought-facilitating functions of Loglan, the language is= =20 > also meant to be a=20 > manageable laboratory instrument: teachable, measurable, controllable; it= s=20 > structure transparently=20 > observable both at the moment of introduction into any experiment and in= =20 > continuous change > > > But Loglan does seem to be easily learned,11 and on every formal paramete= r=20 > it is agreeably small. > The number of its grammar rules is an order of magnitude less than has=20 > come to be expected of natural grammars from recent work. > > > While the size of a language is not the only factor that determines the= =20 > speed with which it is learned, it is=20 > undoubtedly an important one; and all my early teaching trials have=20 > suggested that Loglan is indeed very rapidly learned. > > > Another feature of the language that reflects its intended use as a=20 > laboratory instrument is its cultural neutrality. > > > *1.4 Loglan in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory* > > Loglan grammar is not only known but already written in a machine-parsabl= e=20 > code. So it is itself the beginning of an AI program. > > > Besides, if the partial grammars now in hand are any indication,=20 > when a complete grammar of a natural human language is finally written, i= t=20 > will be far too large=20 > for programmatic manipulation in the AI lab. Natural languages are very= =20 > large affairs. > > > Thus, more than anything else it is the small size, formal completeness= =20 > and machine parsability=20 > of Loglan grammar that seem to suit it for manipulation in the artificial= =20 > intelligence laboratory.=20 > > > *1.5 Loglan at the Machine-Man interface* > > ...to make the machine-man interface truly comfortable for humans and yet= =20 > continue to be instructive > for machines, we need a language in which the requirements of both humans= =20 > and machines are met. > > > Loglan may be such a language. We have seen that it is utterly unequivoca= l=20 > grammatically. One=20 > consequence is that we humans become aware of what we are actually saying= =20 > when we talk=20 > Loglan. So a Loglan-speaking human is much less likely to say one thing= =20 > while meaning another,=20 > thus misinforming his or her machine. Also, as we shall see in the next= =20 > chapter, Loglan words=20 > resolve uniquely from the speech-stream; no 'I scream'/'Ice cream'=20 > phenomena exist in it. So even=20 > spoken instructions are unequivocal in Loglan. This is true of no other= =20 > language. Being able to=20 > speak freely composed instructions spontaneously would add immeasurably t= o=20 > the speed and=20 > comfort of the interaction for humans, and yet, because it's Loglan, its= =20 > being spoken would not=20 > diminish its precision for machines.=20 > > > What do we human partners in this high-powered interaction require? That= =20 > we be permitted to=20 > express our thoughts fully, freely and spontaneously without the risk of= =20 > seriously misinforming=20 > our machines. That we be able to understand most of the machine's=20 > word-choices and all its=20 > utterance-forms immediately, and be able to clarify by interrogation=20 > whatever part of the=20 > computer's responses to us we do not immediately understand. > > > *1.6 Loglan as a Translation Medium* > > Consider the problem. An original document, say a French article on=20 > galactic evolution, is to be=20 > translated into a dozen other languages, from Chinese to Swahili. As this= =20 > project would be=20 > implemented now, it would turn into a dozen separate translation tasks,= =20 > each performed by its=20 > own bilingual expert, or team of experts, if as many as a dozen could be= =20 > found. But with Loglan=20 > as the translation medium, the project would be transformed into=20 > essentially one task: translation=20 > of the French document into Loglan. Admittedly this would require human= =20 > effort aided by=20 > whatever computer algorithms the agency had developed for this purpose.= =20 > But the resulting=20 > Loglan document could then be more or less instantly retranslated into=20 > almost any number of=20 > other natural tongues, and this second step could in principle be=20 > performed, and so eventually in=20 > practice, by machines.=20 > > > *1.7 Loglan in Information Storage and Retrieval* > > Another not quite so incidental by-product of using Loglan as a=20 > translation medium would be=20 > that the Loglan texts so created would be well-adapted for the machine=20 > storage and retrieval of=20 > the information they contained. For one of the same reasons that Loglan I= s=20 > suitable at the=20 > interface, namely that knowledge stored in the predicate notation is=20 > apparently usable by both=20 > machines and humans, texts translated into Loglan and stored on some=20 > electronic medium could=20 > later be searched and even studied by machines. The studying Machines=20 > would be computers=20 > "trained", i.e., programmed in the AI style, in the human art of scholarl= y=20 > reading. Although key=20 > words and Phrases can be searched for now, and in texts written in any=20 > language, natural=20 > language texts cannot yet be understood by computers in this way.=20 > Once again Loglan yields a special benefit because its grammar is=20 > transparent and its meanings=20 > clear. > > > *1.8 Loglan as a Planetary Second Language* > > Although Loglan was not designed for this bright future, it may=20 > nevertheless have attributes that fit it for the job. > > > *1.9 Loglan as a Linguistic Toy* > > This is the perspective from which Loglan is seen by many individuals, no= t=20 > as a=20 > research tool, not as contribution to the machine-man interface, not as a= =20 > candidate for the=20 > international auxiliary, but as a delightful and very human toy. > > > > > So out of all this, what are officially the goals of lojban? > > Thanks > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 > "lojban" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= =20 > email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 > "lojban" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= =20 > email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > =20 --=20 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 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_1928_21136593.1403696856968 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, PC. Your = blog post makes a convincing argument that being unambiguous, or what you a= re calling "monoparsing" (you are the only hit on google for this term, so = I'll stick to the conventional terminology), is lojban's most distinguishin= g feature, but I do not think that it answers the question of goals.=


<= br>

To summarize your unofficial respo= nse, the goals are:

1) to b= e a usable language

2)= to be unambiguous

3) = to be able to be mapped to a symbolic logic expression


I think= 1) and 2) are well stated goals. They are clear and simple, making it easy= to see if they are being met or not.

Your goals 2) and 3) seem like instrumental goals, rather than terminal = goals.




=

When I posted the question, I tri= ed to gather references, but avoid posting any interpretation of them since= my interpretation is not relevant to the question of the official stance.<= /font>



Since the discussion is tu= rning unofficial, I=E2=80=99ll offer my opinion. These are the bits in the = references that I think/hope/expect best describe the goals:<= /p>


"enhancing the measurable performan= ce of its learners"

=E2=80=9Clanguage limits thought= .=E2=80=9C

=E2=80=9Ctake the suspected limits off, more precisely, to push them outward in some direc= tion"

=E2=80=9Cextreme= ly logical.=E2=80=9D


To state the goals in my own words:=


The = goal of lojban is to be a usable language which enhances thought.

= - maximize facility for logical= thought: clear, sound, consistent reasoning

=

- minimize limitations on thought

<= /span>


What = do we mean by =E2=80=9Clogical=E2=80=9D?:

- clarity is logical

- consistency and regularity is logical

- being systematic is logical

- being objective and unbiased= is logical


What are limitations on thought?:

- relative difficulty expressing relat= ively simple concepts

= - not allowing vagueness is a limitation; vagueness reduces limit of minima= l precision

- ambiguit= y is a limitation on clarity


Note: The goal of lojban is not t= o test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However this hypothesis inspired lojban= =E2=80=99s goals and lojban should be ideal for testing it.


No= te: Some people may advocate being =E2=80=9Crational=E2=80=9D over =E2=80= =9Clogical=E2=80=9D. The term =E2=80=9Crational=E2=80=9D is not used in the= goal statement with the view that; logical thought is required to evaluate= and choose rational actions.


<= /b>

<= font face=3D"arial, sans-serif" size=3D"2">Note: Ambiguousness is multiple = possible distinct/unrelated meanings. Vagueness is a single meaning, expres= sed with less precision.


=

I think m= any of the instrumental goals and design features derive from these goals.<= /span>


Stuff my goals (= and notes) do not cover:

- Does =E2= =80=9Cenhances thought=E2=80=9D apply to learners, speakers, or thinkers? I= s it still expected to apply when they are not speaking/thinking in lojban?=

- Should the definition mention s= implicity (or avoiding unnecessary complexity) as an aspect of being logical? is that part of clarity? = =E2=80=9CSimplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

- Stability and backwards compatibility; is this part of = usability?

- The need?/goal? to spe= cify/document much/all of the language.


=

Other interesting points for this definition:

- Viewing a team of people/computers = as a single entity, communication within that entity is part of thought. Co= mmunication as language may even be necessary within one brain (that is my = unsupported speculation).




Discussion aside, I sti= ll hope for an official answer to the question - and I think it is an impor= tant question deserving of one.

Officially= , what are the goals of= lojban?


Thanks,

Andrew  /  DerSaidin




On Tuesday, June 10, 20= 14 3:54:48 AM UTC+10, clifford wrote:
vid: Lojban is monoparsing  on pck= ipo.blogspot.com


On Mond= ay, June 9, 2014 9:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <loj...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

VERY unofficially,= the goal of Lojban is to have a usable language which is syntactically una= mbiguous, that is, is such that every grammatical utterance has a unique an= d correct parse (monoparsing, for short).  If it is not meeting this g= oal, Lojban is unduly complex for meeting whatever other goals it may have = (all of which are met more efficiently by other constructed languages, most= by even, say, toki pona).  Lojban has some reason to claim that it me= ets this goal, at least that it has a grammar that gives a unique parse to = each grammatical sentence. What is less clearly demonstrated is that this p= arse is always correct in the sense that it maps directly onto a unique for= mula of symbolic logic, though this appears likely, given the care which ha= s been devoted to details that such a mapping would involve 


<= div dir=3D"ltr"> On Monday, June 9, 2014 8= :54 AM, Andrew Browne <ders...@gmai= l.com> wrote:

=

What are the official goals of lojban?

=

It is important to have an underst= anding of the goals for ongoing work (finishing BPFK sections, etc.), otherwise w= e will end up with stuff that is inconsistent.
I think many peopl= e involved have an implicit understanding of the goals, due to having been around much longer, and/or closely involved in BPFK.
<= div>
I am after an official clear statement of= goals for lojban (or reference to one), for the benefit of those of us who= have not been around for so long (and clarification for everyone else).



The best source I can find is the CLL:

The goals for the language were first de= scribed in the open literature in the article =E2=80=9CLoglan=E2=80=9D, pub= lished in Scientific American, June, 1960.
 
The foll= owing are the main features of Lojban:
Lojban is designed= to be used by people in communication with each other, and possibly in the= future with computers.
Lojban is designed to be neutral = between cultures.
Lojban grammar is based on the principl= es of predicate logic.
Lojban has an unambiguous yet flex= ible grammar.
Lojban has phonetic spelling, and unambiguo= usly resolves its sounds into words.
Lojban is simple com= pared to natural languages; it is easy to learn.
Lojban= =E2=80=99s 1300 root words can be easily combined to form a vocabulary of m= illions of words.
Lojban is regular; the rules of the lan= guage are without exceptions.
Lojban attempts to remove r= estrictions on creative and clear thought and communication.
Lojban has a variety of uses, ranging fro= m the creative to the scientific, from the theoretical to the practical.Lojban has been demonstrated in translation and in original works of prose and poetry.



I a= lso found some other materials with similar lists of features, and a simila= r reference to the goals of TLI Loglan:


There has also been some= discussion of goals on this list:






=



First, lets look in that 1960 Scientific American Arti= cle mentioned earlier:

It was to supply an instrument for experimental investigation o= f the Leibniz-Whorf hypothesis that we undertook our work on Loglan in 1955= .
Loglan was to be an artificial language, but one especially designed to test the thesis that the structure of language determines the forms of thought.
It was to have= a small, easily learned vocabulary derived from the word stock of as many = of the major natural languages as proved feasible (though it was not intend= ed to be an auxiliary international language).
Its rules = of grammar and syntax were to be as few and regular as possible.
It was to utilize a short list of speech sounds (phonemes) common= to the natural languages [see table on opposite page], and it was to be ph= onetically spelled.
 
But most imp= ortant, Loglan was to incorporate as many of the notational devices of mode= rn logic and mathematics as could be adapted to its use. =




The other good source I = found on TLI Loglan is this book, Loglan1 (which appears to me to be the TLI Log= lan equivalent of CLL):

In chapter 1, there are section= s 1 through 9 that cover a different goal (or maybe feature/viewpoint).

1.1 The Scientific Strategy
Log= lan is a language which was originally devised to test the Sapir-Whorf hypo= thesis
that the structure of language determines the boun= daries of human thought.

The most prom= ising way to create such a difference, it seemed to me, was to exaggerate s= ome 
natural function of human language, that is, to= increase the functional adequacy of some complex 
o= f linguistic structures in a way that would have a strong independent likel= ihood of enhancing 
the measurable performance of it= s learners on some specified set of tasks. Besides, in its original formulation the Whorf hypothesis is a negative one: langua= ge limits thought. One way of 
disclosing such pheno= mena is to take the suspected limits off, more precisely, to push them = ;
outward in some direction in which removing limits woul= d have predictable effects. So it was 
settled. The = diminutive language should also be a functionally extreme one in some known or 
presum= able way: an extremely poetic one, say, or an extremely efficient one, or extremely 
logical.

1.2 Loglan as a Logical Language
But the claim inves= ted in this metaphor is in fact narrower than the wide 
word 'logical' suggests. Loglan is logical only in the sense of purport= ing to facilitate certain 
limited kinds of thought:= namely those kinds which proceed by the transformation of sentences <= br clear=3D"none">into other sentences in such a way that if the first are = true so also are the second. We might
also expect it to m= inimize, or help prevent, the errors that are usually made in performing su= ch 
deductive operations. But these are fairly modes= t senses of the word 'logical'. We might have 
meant to convey by it the much stronger claim= that Loglan is a deductive system, in the sense 
that geometry and formal logic are. To s= upport such a claim we would have had to show that 
= Loglan had a set of elementary notions and elementary operations from which= all its complex 
notions and complex operations had= been rigorously derived. But we do not make this claim.
<= br clear=3D"none">
1.3 Loglan as a Laboratory Instrument
A= part from the thought-facilitating functions of Loglan, the language is als= o meant to be a 
manageable laboratory instrument: t= eachable, measurable, controllable; its structure transparently 
observable both at the moment of introduction into any experim= ent and in continuous change

But Loglan does seem to be eas= ily learned,11 and on every formal parameter it is agreeably small.
The number of its grammar rules is an order of magnitude less th= an has come to be expected of natural grammars from recent work.

While the size of a language is not the only fac= tor that determines the speed with which it is learned, it is 
undoubtedly an important one; and all my early teaching trials h= ave suggested that Loglan is indeed very rapidly learned.
=
Another feature of the language that reflects its inten= ded use as a laboratory instrument is its cultural neutrality.
=

1.4 Loglan in the Artificial Intellig= ence Laboratory
Loglan grammar is not only known but already written in= a machine-parsable code. So it is itself the beginning of an AI program.

Besides, if the partial grammars now in hand are any indication, 
when a complete grammar of a natural human language is finally written, = it will be far too large 
for programmatic manipulation in the AI lab. Natural languages are very large = affairs.

Thus, more than anything else= it is the small size, formal completeness and machine parsability of Loglan grammar that seem to suit it for manipulation in = the artificial intelligence laboratory. 

1.5 Loglan at the Machine-Man interface
...to make= the machine-man interface truly comfortable for humans and yet continue to= be instructive
for machines, we need a language in which= the requirements of both humans and machines are met.

Loglan may be such a language. W= e have seen that it is utterly unequivocal grammatically. One 
consequence is that we humans become aware of what we are actual= ly saying when we talk 
Loglan. So a Loglan-speaking= human is much less likely to say one thing while meaning another, thus misinforming his or her machine. Also, as we shall see= in the next chapter, Loglan words 
resolve uniquely= from the speech-stream; no 'I scream'/'Ice cream' phenomena exist in it. S= o even 
spoken instructions are unequivocal in Logla= n. This is true of no other language. Being able to 
speak freely composed instructions spontaneously would add immeasurably to the speed and 
comfort of the interaction for humans, and yet, because it's Loglan, its being spoken would not 
diminish its precision for machines. 

What do we human partners in this high-powered interaction requ= ire? That we be permitted to 
express our thoughts f= ully, freely and spontaneously without the risk of seriously misinforming&n= bsp;
our machines. That we be able to understand most of = the machine's word-choices and all its 
utterance-fo= rms immediately, and be able to clarify by interrogation whatever part of t= he 
computer's responses to us we do not immediately= understand.

1.6 Loglan a= s a Translation Medium
Consider the problem. An original document, say = a French article on galactic evolution, is to be 
tr= anslated into a dozen other languages, from Chinese to Swahili. As this pro= ject would be 
implemented now, it would turn into a= dozen separate translation tasks, each performed by its 
own bilingual expert, or team of experts, if as many as a dozen could= be found. But with Loglan 
as the translation mediu= m, the project would be transformed into essentially one task: translation&= nbsp;
of the French document into Loglan. Admittedly this= would require human effort aided by 
whatever compu= ter algorithms the agency had developed for this purpose. But the resulting=  
Loglan document could then be more or less instant= ly retranslated into almost any number of 
other nat= ural tongues, and this second step could in principle be performed, and so eventually in 
practice, by machines. 

=
1.7 Loglan in Information Storage and Retrieval
Another n= ot quite so incidental by-product of using Loglan as a translation medium w= ould be 
that the Loglan texts so created would be w= ell-adapted for the machine storage and retrieval of 
the information they contained. For one of the same reasons that Loglan I= s suitable at the 
interface, namely that knowledge = stored in the predicate notation is apparently usable by both 
machines and humans, texts translated into Loglan and stored on = some electronic medium could 
later be searched and = even studied by machines. The studying Machines would be computers 
"trained", i.e., programmed in the AI st= yle, in the human art of scholarly reading. Although key 
words and Phrases can be searched for now, and in texts written in an= y language, natural 
language texts cannot yet be un= derstood by computers in this way. 
Once again Logla= n yields a special benefit because its grammar is transparent and its meani= ngs 
clear.

1.8 Loglan as a Planetary Second Language
Although Loglan was= not designed for this bright future, it may nevertheless have attributes t= hat fit it for the job.

1= .9 Loglan as a Linguistic Toy
This is the perspective from which Loglan is seen by many individu= als, not as a 
research tool, not as contribution to= the machine-man interface, not as a candidate for the 
international auxiliary, but as a delightful and very human toy.



So out of all this, what are officially the goals= of lojban?

Thanks
--
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 e= mail to To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.c= om/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d= /optout.


--
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 e= mail to To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.c= om/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d= /optout.

--
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+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_1928_21136593.1403696856968--