Received: from mail-qa0-f58.google.com ([209.85.216.58]:35370) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1X4Ar1-0004Qm-N4 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 08:29:21 -0700 Received: by mail-qa0-f58.google.com with SMTP id hw13sf1327338qab.3 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to: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=utM3VE260riIPZO8/TnGdnsbP/2MtPFxyuXLYYkCReU=; b=LrGlU4n5p3K+imW6oZ2avt6E526+nyTin1x081Yr7Tbu5P6+kgONTudxBYiOEsXKbK hEYGObKPoFxb2UsGVb1AxAqUMd8fVVUNpA+slRR4pDEpnMVuv3JsBtFo5RcalYhWAS5U zJMaivNr8LGBJATlPu5s15FOw75bMF+6B5cpVD8F8ZYPgwUk5BLu89XumfgKU/HQLv9a wGUTzbCcAD2apRcMtEX7+GoYLIfuI97GguxDT72io5uQq8glukYPcKTOvM/CFiwHyQqe 9qnuRTCFhDrcI2YWIvBzDmHkN7JRk/1QWT1qHp/EpDfYwAM5agW4HTb5FvDtSYDpiksr FLdw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to: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=utM3VE260riIPZO8/TnGdnsbP/2MtPFxyuXLYYkCReU=; b=ioFrxuP+32601to2m8EYFJslH/Kv8FpBL29U6krgIrhaNnCKhnRcg5Hdji9jntwuVP siICSQB0P9vrfOWJYaqIxjhR725IWhxXjgi3Vpyz6eHmaRTgctpeAKaZLW9i8xbt+H5e lIah4WT7mW8Uyikq8a8qJXBCrkjJY+RQypX7yq72Neq6533QEQscX/l2yQ6YDdVrz6Uy t4Dw5h4Usu7EGnTsXOg4n9sqenYSHslnHAXS+WgbsJqMvWIPeHsrk0VvhTbK2xB2Lk2J s+vh0Lk71O97yeRTKjgn0u56fYUxkOVwONG/5sAjvJ+obAZbcNaeRCdb3fk2cQLJkGg3 zOcg== X-Received: by 10.50.61.145 with SMTP id p17mr1516631igr.16.1404746953399; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.43.234 with SMTP id z10ls2245914igl.33.gmail; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.111.232 with SMTP id il8mr712831igb.6.1404746952868; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 08:29:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Browne To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <8fa11be2-7d5d-4997-b3aa-5331e6119112@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3854b8c6-4e18-4b76-9039-d1d5cdbcbb16@googlegroups.com> <1402323602.64243.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1402336485.50854.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <273fe5a5-b80e-4df3-87b0-3c916ed920a9@googlegroups.com> <9742a10f-72c6-4c70-a402-b04d9434e7ca@googlegroups.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_52_18643489.1404746951539" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_52_18643489.1404746951539 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I *would* insist on syntactic unambiguity (I think this is a more=20 conventional term for "monoparsing", and more precise than my previous use= =20 of "unambiguous"). That would be an instrumental goal for minimizing=20 ambiguity. One could argue it is also a terminal goal, I certainly think it= =20 is at least a very important instrumental goal (important because I expect= =20 syntactic unambiguity is necessary to maximize the utility function of the= =20 terminal goal I stated). I haven=E2=80=99t elaborated all the instrumental goals for the terminal go= al I=20 stated. I would not expect to achieve semantic unambiguity to the infinite=20 precision you are suggesting. I think that is where the distinction between= =20 ambiguity and vagueness comes in. Striving to perfect precision of meaning= =20 is attempting to eliminate vagueness. As I noted in a previous post, I'm using the terms "ambiguousness" and=20 "vagueness"with this distinction: Ambiguousness is multiple possible=20 distinct/unrelated meanings. Vagueness is a single meaning, expressed with= =20 less precision. Everything short of perfectly precise meaning has some vagueness, I agree= =20 this is inevitable. That vagueness is not something I would attempt to=20 minimize. la gleki, what is the semantic regularization you are saying those words=20 exhibit? regularized place structures? atomic concepts (kanpe vs pacna)? =E2=80=9CWhy does a language have to have "goals"?=E2=80=9D Thanks for raising this question, gejyspa. It is fundamental to my question= =20 and I have neglected to address it. I don=E2=80=99t think =E2=80=9Ca language=E2=80=9D has to have goals (as yo= u note, you could=20 perhaps argue the implicit goal is communication). Other than=20 communication, I think it would be hard to argue that natural languages=20 have goals, and I don=E2=80=99t know of any motivation for trying to explic= itly=20 specify goals of natural languages. Constructed languages on the other hand, I think must have a goal from=20 their creator(s). It may be a frivolous goal, like =E2=80=9Cto play with wo= rds=E2=80=9D or=20 =E2=80=9Cfor my amusement=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cfor art=E2=80=9D. If a const= ructed language does not have=20 goals; what will guide it=E2=80=99s creation? How will its design be chosen= ? What=20 motivation brought it into existence? Among conlangs, I expect Lojban to have well defined goals because it is=20 =E2=80=9Clogical language=E2=80=9D. Choices for the design/construction/spe= cification/use=20 of the language can be guided by having goals, which should make the=20 language more coherent and consistent. I think having goals is logical. The next question is: why does Lojban have to have explicitly defined goals= ? So that the benefits of having goals mentioned above can continue=20 consistently through time, and through multiple contributors/creators.=20 Having explicit goals may also help to resolve future unanswered questions= =20 or arguments (and do so with an answer more consistent with all the rest of= =20 Lojban). And again, I expect lojban should have explicit goals because I=20 think it is logical for lojban to have goals. If lojban does not have explicit goals, surely it has unexplicit goals? Why= =20 not make them explicit? On Monday, July 7, 2014 11:49:53 AM UTC+10, gejyspa wrote: > > Why does a language have to have "goals"? =20 > > > My goal with lojban (unlike Loglan) is to not have people ask what its= =20 > goals are. Clearly it has failed this goal. > > > But seriously, my question above stands. You seem to think it is=20 > crucial that a language has goals, (mostly because you said "I think it= =20 > is an important question deserving of one. Officially, what are the goals= =20 > of lojban?") But I don't think a language need have any goals (other than= =20 > perhaps the goal that it is able to be the means of communication between= =20 > at least two entities, human or otherwise). > > --gejyspa > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Andrew Browne > wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:19:06 PM UTC+10, la gleki wrote: >>> >>> Hm, i can't see syntactic unambiguity in the list of your goals. >>> >> >> I stated what I think/hope/expect the terminal goal of lojban to be: >> >> The goal of lojban is to be a usable language which enhances thought. >> >> - maximize facility for logical thought: clear, sound, consistent=20 >> reasoning >> >> - minimize limitations on thought >> >> >> I did mention ambiguity as something to minimize: >> >> >> - ambiguity is a limitation on clarity >> >> >> I may have missed other instrumental goals.=20 >> =20 >> >>> Does this mean lojban aims not only for syntactic but for semantic=20 >>> unambiguity as well? >>> >> >> I did not differentiate between syntactic and semantic ambiguity, I thin= k=20 >> both are to be minimized. >> =20 >> >>> Does lojban have a goal of a semantic regularization and if yes then to= =20 >>> what extent? I can see that e.g. the place structure of words for anima= ls=20 >>> is more or less homogeneous. >>> >> >> I would say yes, as this is an aspect of being logical - something to be= =20 >> maximized: >> >> - consistency and regularity is logical >> >> >> To what extent? I'm not sure. >> I guess as much as possible, until the increasing it reduces the overall= =20 >> utility function we're trying to maximize (which, at this point, might= =20 >> include stuff like backwards compatibility). >> =20 >> >>> >>> Does Lojban aims for being a metalanguage in future machine translation= =20 >>> applications? >>> Does this eventually mean it is supposed to be an auxiliary language in= =20 >>> that you write in Lojban, and your text is automatically translated int= o=20 >>> high quality texts in other languages? >>> >> >> My interpretation of some of the sources in my first post (namely the=20 >> "Loglan 1"; 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) is that these nice features would be probable= =20 >> consequences of the language design choices. >> I don't think these need to be goals to emerge as features, but having= =20 >> them considered as low priority secondary goals may improve those featur= es. >> >> >> >> The original question is still open. Officially, what are the goals of= =20 >> lojban? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrew / DerSaidin >> >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s=20 >> "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n=20 >> email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com=20 >> . >> 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 "= 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_52_18643489.1404746951539 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I *would* = insist on syntactic unambiguity (I think this is a more conventional term f= or "monoparsing", and more precise than my previous use of "unambiguous"). = That would be an instrumental goal for minimizing ambiguity. One could argu= e it is also a terminal goal, I certainly think it is at least a very impor= tant instrumental goal (important because I expect syntactic unambiguity is= necessary to maximize the utility function of the terminal goal I stated).=


I haven=E2=80=99t elaborated all the instrumental goals for th= e terminal goal I stated.


I would not expect to ach= ieve semantic unambiguity to the infinite precision you are suggesting. I t= hink that is where the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness comes in= . Striving to perfect precision of meaning is attempting to eliminate vague= ness.


A= s I noted in a previous post, I'm using the terms "ambiguousness" and "vagu= eness"with this distinction: Ambiguousness is multiple possible distinct/un= related meanings. Vagueness is a single meaning, expressed with less precis= ion.


Ev= erything short of perfectly precise meaning has some vagueness, I agree thi= s is inevitable. That vagueness is not something I would attempt to minimiz= e.





la gleki, what is the semant= ic regularization you are saying those words exhibit? regularized place str= uctures? atomic concepts (kanpe vs pacna)?




=E2=80=9CWhy does a language have= to have "goals"?=E2=80=9D

Thanks for raising this question, gejyspa. It is fundamental to = my question and I have neglected to address it.


I don=E2=80=99t think =E2=80=9Ca l= anguage=E2=80=9D has to have goals (as you note, you could perhaps argue th= e implicit goal is communication). Other than communication, I think it wou= ld be hard to argue that natural languages have goals, and I don=E2=80=99t = know of any motivation for trying to explicitly specify goals of natural la= nguages.


Among conlangs, I expect Lojban to have well defined goals becaus= e it is =E2=80=9Clogical language=E2=80=9D. Choices for the design/construc= tion/specification/use of the language can be guided by having goals, which= should make the language more coherent and consistent. I think having goal= s is logical.


The next question is: why does Lojban have to have explicitly define= d goals?

So= that the benefits of having goals mentioned above can continue consistentl= y through time, and through multiple contributors/creators. Having explicit= goals may also help to resolve future unanswered questions or arguments (a= nd do so with an answer more consistent with all the rest of Lojban). And a= gain, I expect lojban should have explicit goals because I think it is logi= cal for lojban to have goals.


If lojban does not have explicit goals, surely it has= unexplicit goals? Why not make them explicit?



On Monday, July 7, 2014 11:49:53 AM UTC+10, gejyspa wrote:
  Why does a langua= ge have to have "goals"?  

<flippancy>
<= div>  My goal with lojban (unlike Loglan) is to not have people a= sk what its goals are.  Clearly it has failed this goal.
</flippancy>

  But seriously, my q= uestion above stands.  You seem to think it is crucial that a language= has goals, (mostly because  you said "I think it is an important question d= eserving of on= e. Officially, <= font>what are the goals of lojban?") But I don't think = a language need have any goals (other than perhaps the goal that it is able= to be the means of communication between at least two entities, human or o= therwise).

--gejyspa


On Sun, Jul 6, = 2014 at 9:38 AM, Andrew Browne <ders...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:19:06 PM UTC+10, la gleki wrote:
Hm, i can't see syntactic unambiguity in the list of your = goals.

I stated what I think/ho= pe/expect the terminal goal of lojban to be:

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


=

= I did mention ambiguity as somethi= ng to minimize:

=

=

= - ambiguity is a limitation on clarity


I may have missed other instru= mental goals. 
 
Does this mean lojban aims not only for syntactic but= for semantic unambiguity as well?

<= /div>
I did not differentiate between syntactic and semantic ambiguity,= I think both are to be minimized.
 
Does lojban ha= ve a goal of a semantic regularization and if yes then to what extent? I ca= n see that e.g. the place structure of words for animals is more or less ho= mogeneous.

I would say yes, as this is an= aspect of being logical - something to be maximized:
- consistency and = regularity is logical

To what extent? I'm not sure.
I guess as much as possible, until = the increasing it reduces the overall utility function we're trying to maxi= mize (which, at this point, might include stuff like backwards compatibilit= y).
 

Does Lojban aims for being a metalanguage in future mac= hine translation applications?
Does this eventually mean it is su= pposed to be an auxiliary language in that you write in Lojban, and your te= xt is automatically translated into high quality texts in other languages?<= /div>

My interpretation of some of t= he sources in my first post (namely the "Loglan 1"; 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) is that = these nice features would be probable consequences of the language design c= hoices.
I don't think these need to be goals to emerge as features, but having= them considered as low priority secondary goals may improve those features= .



The original quest= ion is still open. Officially, what are the goals of = lojban?


Thanks,

Andrew =  /  DerSaidin

--
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+un...@googlegroups= .com.
To post to this group, send email to l= oj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/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_52_18643489.1404746951539--