Received: from mail-ee0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]:65175) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XWShb-0004qX-Nv for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:34 -0700 Received: by mail-ee0-f61.google.com with SMTP id t10sf457586eei.26 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:24 -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=FDG3X64ZiEgkIpIh4gOJl0SZKIZG6XZgbob9gGjDVlA=; b=jP5aUj1mZDpgyvFx0vuwSNGel+UdkXdoKsEqPT0wxYCISYTQZm7irgJlN9nN4DPrpl NDrhn07T3bJeUIbVlOoP4V7Ag8DMH7cIMqNhHbkUOORKQkxAd5NMxGxumO61lgKWb08A YAMvf3zuBvFNb8ue67G83Nvampb/BSPY+T97aYxlO/6ZyMXni3qEvAWMmKUFyDH8NZve SLcxyvPeqw4CP7L0UURZO4NJQgR/t0VD6as8SnkqUtZw0hrjvnOkV3ofGftGQA82QnBG OuIGpiesAbT0LSVq0AeSkSn06POtl4BhYZe0CiS9JnwtMcPzCrKKeF4agDbRvRqZvKLq NyGw== X-Received: by 10.152.18.195 with SMTP id y3mr11164lad.38.1411488744619; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.206.72 with SMTP id lm8ls68821lac.9.gmail; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.145.136 with SMTP id su8mr107557lbb.9.1411488743558; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cd14si156287wib.1.2014.09.23.09.12.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c; Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id p10so4442203wes.3 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.14.101 with SMTP id o5mr4803246wic.25.1411488743401; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.175.167 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1411477094.38293.YahooMailNeo@web181101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <54186B05.1000802@lojban.org> <54216771.9060804@gmail.com> <1411477094.38293.YahooMailNeo@web181101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:12:23 +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:c03::22c 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=f46d041555fc27af2e0503bdd580 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d041555fc27af2e0503bdd580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-23 16:58 GMT+04:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com>: > Losing the thread here. But > English is a tonal language? > yes, say aloud this last phrase and hear the tone. > Examples please. > Positional case system? In Lojban, position is not case -- no consistent > meaning/role attached to position. > I suspect this is all part of the Logjam tradition of misusing technical > words, but can't quite decipher what is meant here. > positional case tags of selma'o FA whereas many natlangs use systems similar to loglandic N-paradigm or even non-metaphorical semantic case tags like {mi cusku fi do} vs. {mi cusku tebe'i do} (if we consider {be'i} being able to transfer information like words). But I hope this common nintadni's complaint is not addressed in the latest proposals (which are of political rather than linguistical nature). btw, while I agree with & that Lojban is not a logical language, I think it > can be brought close enough with minimal effort (once that effort is > allowed to be made) that it is more efficient to work to fix it than to > start from scratch (or even from scraps). > it'd be nice to see what an ideal logical language/style is. Something like http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Expansion_of_logical_connections ? Because the term "logical language" is again used in many senses, idk which one you are using. > > On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:44 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < > gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > -- > 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. --f46d041555fc27af2e0503bdd580 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-23 16:58 GMT+04:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>:
Losing the thread here.=C2=A0 But=C2=A0<= /span>
English is = a tonal language?

= yes, say aloud this last phrase and hear the tone.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0Examples please.
Positional case system?=C2=A0 In= Lojban, position is not case -- no consistent meaning/role attached to pos= ition.
I su= spect this is all part of the Logjam tradition of misusing technical words,= but can't quite decipher what is meant here.
<= /blockquote>

positional case tags of selma'o FA wher= eas many natlangs use systems similar to loglandic N-paradigm or even non-m= etaphorical semantic case tags like
{mi cusku fi do} vs. {mi cusk= u tebe'i do} (if we consider {be'i} being able to transfer informat= ion like words).

But I hope this common nintadni&#= 39;s complaint is not addressed in the latest proposals (which are of polit= ical rather than linguistical nature).

btw, while I agree with & that Lojban is not a logical = language, I think it can be brought close enough with minimal effort (once = that effort is allowed to be made) that it is more efficient to work to fix= it than to start from scratch (or even from scraps).

it'd be nice to see what an ideal l= ogical language/style is.
Something like=C2=A0

Because the term "logical = language" is again used in many senses, idk which one you are using.

<= div>






2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04= :00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&g= t;:
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 language that always tran= slates 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 in= tertranslatable.

Since this project is/would be based on Loglan and Lojban then it i= s 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 ca= re 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 st= art breaking it once every two years then i will just stop doing any work h= ere.
I need a stable language.
First think of a limited= number of backward incompatible changes, vote for them and freeze the lang= uage 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 th= at 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 u= pdate, 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 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 see only complaints about positional case syst= em but i need to write a large complete explanation why it cant be otherwis= e so that people stop asking the same question over and over again with the= ir 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 star= t a rant but doesnt know where to start so may be in lojbanistan, may be ab= out 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 langu= age.
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@googlegro= ups.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/<= u>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+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/o= ptout.


--
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.
--f46d041555fc27af2e0503bdd580--