Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Message-ID: <5407A799.3040903@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:43:21 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: criticism of lojban needed
References: <CAO7bV+gzuMQacgo6dwYAhyUd1NEVv-6Up2uC=j=XFGvx+bU+QA@mail.gmail.com> <5eccb6c5-6904-4b30-a49c-455e9bb1d32a@googlegroups.com> <5406CBB8.20305@gmail.com> <1409759095.40258.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20140903160258.GH585@samsa.fritz.box> <mgWK1o01N56Cr6M01gWL9k>
In-Reply-To: <mgWK1o01N56Cr6M01gWL9k>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 9/3/2014 12:30 PM, selpa'i wrote:
> la .van. cu cusku
>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:44:55AM -0700, 'John E Clifford' via
>> lojban wrote:
>>> Let's see how that line of objections, rather than ones to the
>>> cosmetics, can be met and turned into a positive discussion of
>>> Lojban.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I might have missed something here, but "It's all crap and
>> anyone could do better" is no valid criticism pe'i
>
> If the goal is to make a language that unambiguously encodes logic, then
> that's relatively easy to achieve. See xorban for one model that doesn't
> add too much unnecessary baggage. Lojban does achieves it too to some
> degree, but it has so much extras that most of the language is still
> undefined. We cannot easily convert Lojban to logic due to that.

I need to note here that if the goal is merely to encode logic, then 
Lojban can probably be called "successful" in that I believe that 
anything expressible in logical notation can probably be represented in 
Mex (the operators needed for any given notation have not been defined, 
but Mex is defined so as to allow innumerable sets of operators as well 
as precedences).

So far as I know, no one in the community is interested in such a narrow 
goal.

> And what about simplicity? Here Gua\spi and Xorban are the clear
> winners, closely followed by Toaq Dzu, and far in the distance comes
> Lojban. Just compare the sizes of their grammars to get a rough idea.

Of course part of the problem is that very few such languages have been 
USED to the extent that Lojban has.  Feature growth has come from usage.

lojbab


-- 
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/d/optout.