Received: from mail-wg0-f55.google.com ([74.125.82.55]:43413) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XWPSI-0001cc-9s for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:32 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f55.google.com with SMTP id z12sf52464wgg.0 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Fose0jj1wUjtitC4HPjFF3MN8BM4j1x59I4tbOVVCv8=; b=ktwYEuretO06oCsI+J29Q4inFHc1SGcGc7cJGHPHRBNoqUap8iVyHzQWD99AQ9XZ+K ZpYcJPG964Xol9PsXmM9fWrwJjZ3Gcp6St5MarIFQ0sLK7JPslWu7UWBHZDaGyLZ42Ks 5hEjJe9run4OSoymgr+DXRXUnhaMbWTT1Exi1GSHYbuWLveMOPDz4aTF2jLqljILSQsj W8iLgfAMlCP/qWa921iffVC5Du7B3Z/hQa+Vz0YKF9TDyeHoz9TXlGcqtZVCFWCSTpdY rF82gibHQQ3fCBlSIDkTrMRxawAEcAgHhkkvbyf4OEPxwJ2pHA1Z5thL0K7GhHsSmI0r xIMg== X-Received: by 10.180.108.4 with SMTP id hg4mr97479wib.8.1411476263300; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.211.200 with SMTP id ne8ls70873wic.21.gmail; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.88.8 with SMTP id bc8mr411629wib.0.1411476262881; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h1si133398wib.0.2014.09.23.05.44.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e; Received: by mail-wi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id fb4so4761396wid.13 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.95.8 with SMTP id dg8mr28668541wjb.1.1411476262774; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.175.167 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54216771.9060804@gmail.com> References: <54186B05.1000802@lojban.org> <54216771.9060804@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:44:22 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0f56406de10503baed4f X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7bdc0f56406de10503baed4f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/2014 17:57: > >> On 9/15/2014 11:14 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote: >> Personally, though I am perfection-driven, I >> have decided that it is a better use of time and talent (a lot of >> the >> one, a little of the other) to work with a nearly completed >> project in >> the hope that it will mange to get completed into a product that >> is good >> enough (does all the crucial things, even if in sloppy, >> inefficient, >> even ugly, ways). >> >> Provided both languages have a formal syntax and a clearly defined >> connection between the two dictionaries it won't matter a lot what >> language will be spoken since the machine translation will be 100% >> precise under such circumstances. >> > > This is not even remotely true. First of all, the formal syntaxes would > have to contain logical forms, which a formal syntax indeed should, but > hardly any do (and Lojban's doesn't). I dont understand this. Once we know the place structure and the syntactic tree in both languages, what can stop us? > Second, the "clearly defined connection" between the dictionaries would > work only if for each word in the one language there is a word in the other > language that always translates it, and this one-to-one translation is > explicitly stated. The only way this is going to happen is if the two languages are > deliberately designed to be intertranslatable. > Since this project is/would be based on Loglan and Lojban then it is implied. > > Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 17/09/2014 15:40: > >> On 9/16/2014 5:36 PM, TR NS wrote: >> >>> If you want to attract people to this language you have to make it >>> so damn good that people can't help themselves. >>> >> > I agree with that. But I think nobody yet knows how to make it good > enough. More on this when I reply to the Engelang message. > > Alas, what some of the tinkerers thing is "so damn good" is anything >> but to other people. >> > > Broadly, Lojbanists fall into two groups. > > I. Those like, say, me, who know and care about logic and linguistics. > II. Those like, say, you, who don't know and don't care about logic and > linguistics. > I care about logic but since Lojban is fine with that the next important thing I care about is backward compatibility. If by some chance these heretics start breaking it once every two years then i will just stop doing any work here. I need a stable language. First think of a limited number of backward incompatible changes, vote for them and freeze the language for not less than 20 years, and update the corpus of texts. If this is done i will approve of that. If not there is Logos project. Let's not spoil the public image of lojban. If it's hard for you or you accept that you wont be able to update the corpus and the textbooks with ALL of your changes then i will never approve of that. first show the result of your update, then we talk. there are enough errors in the corpus to fix them with the current state of affairs. dont make things harder to solve. > History has shown a consensus among Group I. If you know and care about > logic and linguistics, then you are painfully conscious of Lojban's > inadequacies and want a better language. If you don't know and care about > logic and linguistics, then change to Lojban seems gratuitous and you want > the language to stay the same. The ideas for change coming from Group I > seem like tinkering only to those, like you, who don't understand them or > the issues involved. > > In the population in general, Group II is vastly larger than Group I, but > I have never been able to understand why people from Group II are attracted > to Lojban in the first place. Therefore I suppose, perhaps wrongly, that > most Lojbanists must fall into Group I and want something that actually is > a logical language, and therefore support a progressive rather than > ultraconservative position. > > What will attract people is a body of other people actively using the >> language, materials published in the language, possibly including >> stuff not otherwise available (original works in Lojban). > > btw a single phrase in lojban is already ka'e not otherwise available and/or satisfactory translatable and thus can represent an original work. People >> USING the language, and not arguing about changes to it is what will >> make things seem "so damn good". You apparently don't realize how >> demoralizing it is to most people to read about yet another suggested >> change, and it is a turnoff simply to see changes being the primary >> discussion topic on the mailing list. "So damn good" necessarily has >> to mean "no one wants to keep tinkering with it". >> > > But what happens -- as with current Lojban -- when people seeking a > logical language -- snd ideally one with a speech community -- arrive and > find that all those Lojbanists who actually understand the > logicolinguistics issues agree that current Lojban is not fit for the > purpose of being a logical language? It seems to me that they want the > language to get fixed. People arrive and find discussion about change a > disillusioning turn-off because it reveals that Lojban advertises itself > under false pretences; it is neither complete nor a logical language. > i can see only complaints about positional case system but i need to write a large complete explanation why it cant be otherwise so that people stop asking the same question over and over again with their minds blurred by an allegedly universal to them case system of a limited number of natlangs they speak. I dont know what is proposed here. Seems like someone here just want to start a rant but doesnt know where to start so may be in lojbanistan, may be about a language? > Forking would fix this, allowing people to vote with their feet. > > I have looked at those. Any tonal language (IMHO) is doomed from the get >>> go. >>> >> >> That is probably because you aren't Chinese. And there are a lot more >> Chinese than English native speakers. >> > > > There are more Chinese speakers than speakers of Basque, too. But, more > relevantly, there are more people who don't speak Chinese than people who > do. english is a tonal language. i wonder if there are non tonal languages except lojban. > > --And. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --047d7bdc0f56406de10503baed4f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/2014 17:57:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 9/15/2014 11:14 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban w= rote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Personally, though I am perfection-driven, I =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 have decided that it is a better use of time an= d talent (a lot of the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 one, a little of the other) to work with a near= ly completed project in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 the hope that it will mange to get completed in= to a product that is good
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 enough (does all the crucial things, even if in= sloppy, inefficient,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 even ugly, ways).

Provided both languages have a formal syntax and a clearly defined
connection between the two dictionaries it won't matter a lot what
language will be spoken since the machine translation will be 100%
precise under such circumstances.

This is not even remotely true. First of all, the formal syntaxes would hav= e to contain logical forms, which a formal syntax indeed should, but hardly= any do (and Lojban's doesn't).
I dont understand = this. Once we know the place structure and the syntactic tree in both langu= ages, what can stop us?
=C2=A0
Second, the= "clearly defined connection" between the dictionaries would work= only if for each word in the one language there is a word in the other lan= guage that always translates it, and this one-to-one translation is explici= tly stated.
The only way this is going to happ= en is if the two languages are deliberately designed to be intertranslatabl= e.

Since this project is/would be based= on Loglan and Lojban then it is implied.=C2=A0

= =C2=A0

Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 17/09/2014 15:40:
On 9/16/2014 5:36 PM, TR NS wrote:
If you want to attract people to this language you have to make it
so damn good that people can't help themselves.

I agree with that. But I think nobody yet knows how to make it good enough.= More on this when I reply to the Engelang message.

Alas, what some of the tinkerers thing is "so damn good" is anyth= ing
but to other people.

Broadly, Lojbanists fall into two groups.

I. Those like, say, me, who know and care about logic and linguistics.
II. Those like, say, you, who don't know and don't care about logic= and linguistics.
=C2=A0
I care about logic = but since Lojban is fine with that the next important thing I care about is= backward compatibility. If by some chance these heretics start breaking it= once every two years then i will just stop doing any work here.
= I need a stable language.
First think of a limited number of back= ward incompatible changes, vote for them and freeze the language for not le= ss than 20 years, and update the corpus of texts. If this is done i will ap= prove of that. If not there is Logos project. Let's not spoil the publi= c image of lojban. If it's hard for you or you accept that you wont be = able to update the corpus and the textbooks with ALL of your changes then i= will never approve of that. first show the result of your update, then we = talk. there are enough errors in the corpus to fix them with the current st= ate of affairs. dont make things harder to solve.

=

History has shown a consensus among Group I. If you know and care about log= ic and linguistics, then you are painfully conscious of Lojban's inadeq= uacies and want a better language. If you don't know and care about log= ic and linguistics, then change to Lojban seems gratuitous and you want the= language to stay the same. The ideas for change coming from Group I seem l= ike tinkering only to those, like you, who don't understand them or the= issues involved.

In the population in general, Group II is vastly larger than Group I, but I= have never been able to understand why people from Group II are attracted = to Lojban in the first place. Therefore I suppose, perhaps wrongly, that mo= st Lojbanists must fall into Group I and want something that actually is a = logical language, and therefore support a progressive rather than ultracons= ervative position.

What will attract people is a body of other people actively using the
language, materials published in the language, possibly including
stuff not otherwise available (original works in Lojban).
btw a single phrase in lojban is already ka'e not o= therwise available and/or satisfactory translatable and thus can represent = an original work.

People
USING the language, and not arguing about changes to it is what will
make things seem "so damn good". You apparently don't realize= how
demoralizing it is to most people to read about yet another suggested
change, and it is a turnoff simply to see changes being the primary
discussion topic on the mailing list. "So damn good" necessarily = has
to mean "no one wants to keep tinkering with it".

But what happens -- as with current Lojban -- when people seeking a logical= language -- snd ideally one with a speech community -- arrive and find tha= t all those Lojbanists who actually understand the logicolinguistics issues= agree that current Lojban is not fit for the purpose of being a logical la= nguage? It seems to me that they want the language to get fixed. People arr= ive and find discussion about change a disillusioning turn-off because it r= eveals that Lojban advertises itself under false pretences; it is neither c= omplete nor a logical language.

i can s= ee only complaints about positional case system but i need to write a large= complete explanation why it cant be otherwise so that people stop asking t= he same question over and over again with their minds blurred by an alleged= ly universal to them case system of a limited number of natlangs they speak= .

I dont know what is proposed here. Seems like so= meone here just want to start a rant but doesnt know where to start so may = be in lojbanistan, may be about a language?


Forking would fix this, allowing people to vote with their feet.

I have looked at those. Any tonal language (IMHO) is doomed from the get go.

That is probably because you aren't Chinese. And there are a lot more Chinese than English native speakers.


There are more Chinese speakers than speakers of Basque, too. But, more rel= evantly, there are more people who don't speak Chinese than people who = do.

english is a tonal language.
= i wonder if there are non tonal languages except lojban.



--And.


--
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+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.

--
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.
--047d7bdc0f56406de10503baed4f--