Received: from mail-wg0-f62.google.com ([74.125.82.62]:65254) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XWSnD-0004xg-SF for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:21 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f62.google.com with SMTP id x12sf146178wgg.27 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -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=skF+qbPDcbJgCOClWOO1byjMMwENMLTpyGHk1R+CIyA=; b=nNubYR44jwS1u1r2kmjoW5RWi5Q5iz39d1oj/Bm1ouS5f4Uqj5BNKcqSWJ75JZXyEf zpr/CWVNQTuJYPECFfnNxKTdNjCH8HqxS1A4tsRYKIwEli02HAWxpvnzomTgkQsRjqLi d0czW9saWEKk44QeLkzYjDpeSLZlzrQaOz4ahv4HLCTkN3OmXe4mGER/fxx8pPN5ck3U 2Qt1FAieKrUOLSb3yfY0Da3VBiB9bP5HTAHdeZ/ywl9zpKynGGOaig7e6biaqyKeMRAX EnvDdY5HcLMELz9DX69uqRnlrKE60SkIDYjKOPfgul3EcV1hVLvpRbJA2Lq/DoWT7U8r uXZw== X-Received: by 10.180.76.41 with SMTP id h9mr29283wiw.9.1411489092777; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.98.229 with SMTP id el5ls636846wib.29.canary; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.100.3 with SMTP id eu3mr1501wjb.6.1411489092300; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ca20si135667wib.3.2014.09.23.09.18.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c; Received: by mail-wi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id em10so5209733wid.11 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.107.231 with SMTP id hf7mr24523662wib.79.1411489092209; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.175.167 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54217DB7.3040604@gmail.com> References: <54186B05.1000802@lojban.org> <54216771.9060804@gmail.com> <54217DB7.3040604@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:18:12 +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::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=e89a8f3bad77f212d70503bde9f2 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --e89a8f3bad77f212d70503bde9f2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-23 18:03 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > Gleki Arxokuna, On 23/09/2014 13:44: > >> 2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04:00 And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>>: >> >> 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? >> > > I presume you're asking about Lojban specifically? There currently aren't > rules that comprehensively map from Lojban sentences' phonological forms to > logical forms. Besides place structures there are tags, quantifiers, > connectives, and so forth. Some rules, such as "left scopes over right", > imply a syntax at variance from the codified one. In terms of syntactical parsing and conversion only my poor knowledge of loglan syntax and the lack of desire to learn it when the loglandic parser is still not as comprehensive as the lojbanic one prevent me from continuing to write such a converter. besides, very few people speak loglan so it's of low priority for me. But a bot in IRC transcodes into {mi prami do}. As for BAI they also exist in Loglan. The lack of some words might mean that >=1 of the two languages need expanding their lexicon. > > > 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. >> > > I don't think it is implied. The Logos Initiative clearly states the sources. > > english is a tonal language. >> > > It isn't a tone language. Whether tone plays any role at all in English > (i.e. intonation) is debatable; it's generally held that it does, and I > think that it probably indeed does, but the evidence is not overwhelming. Indeed. Indeed? > > > i wonder if there are non tonal languages except lojban. >> > > There are thousands that are as tonal as Lojban is. Most known examples? > > > --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. --e89a8f3bad77f212d70503bde9f2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-23 18:03 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Gleki Arxokuna, On 23/09/2014 13:44= :
2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/2014 17:57:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 9/15/2014 11:14 AM, '= ;John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Personally, t= hough I am perfection-driven, I
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0have decided = that it is a better use of time and talent (a lot of the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0one, a little= of the other) to work with a nearly completed project in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the hope that= it will mange to get completed into a product that is good
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0enough (does = all the crucial things, even if in sloppy, inefficient,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0even ugly, wa= ys).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Provided both languages have a formal syntax an= d a clearly defined
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 connection between the two dictionaries it won&= #39;t matter a lot what
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 language will be spoken since the machine trans= lation will be 100%
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 precise under such circumstances.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 This is not even remotely true. First of all, the formal synt= axes would have to contain logical forms, which a formal syntax indeed shou= ld, 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?

I presume you're asking about Lojban specifically? There currently aren= 't rules that comprehensively map from Lojban sentences' phonologic= al forms to logical forms. Besides place structures there are tags, quantif= iers, connectives, and so forth. Some rules, such as "left scopes over= right", imply a syntax at variance from the codified one.
In terms of syntactical parsing and conversion only my poor knowledge= of loglan syntax and the lack of desire to learn it when the loglandic par= ser is still not as comprehensive as the lojbanic one prevent me from conti= nuing to write such a converter. besides, very few people speak loglan so i= t's of low priority for me.
But a bot in IRC transcodes <m= i cluva tu> into {mi prami do}.
As for BAI they also exist in = Loglan. The lack of some words might mean that >=3D1 of the two language= s need expanding their lexicon.=C2=A0
<= span class=3D"">

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Second, the "clearly defined connection" between th= e dictionaries would work only if for each word in the one language there i= s a word in the other language that always translates it, and this one-to-o= ne translation is explicitly stated.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 implie= d.

I don't think it is implied.

The Logos = Initiative clearly states the sources.



english is a tonal language.

It isn't a tone language. Whether tone plays any role at all in English= (i.e. intonation) is debatable; it's generally held that it does, and = I think that it probably indeed does, but the evidence is not overwhelming.=

Indeed. Indeed?
=C2=A0


i wonder if there are non tonal languages except lojban.

There are thousands that are as tonal as Lojban is.

Most known examples?
=C2=A0


--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.
--e89a8f3bad77f212d70503bde9f2--