Received: from mail-la0-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:62481) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XWfpz-0005aW-I0 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:14:09 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f61.google.com with SMTP id s18sf801649lam.16 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:56 -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=0IS+9xIv6v/Msc4gBIQMMkMnPZD4nQYRiWnQ3TCSVVE=; b=u60nubBRoJuewktLdJJM5Mctw3zuZTFY6QCLNsyRRVjZfP8F7V/zJaebXcTMxoLMmo tr+tV5cAARQNlQv+ZWFjEsvzxkoNzUR0g9vFGvjncFhR23YEGi9VaJty6ZP+X2RXE0tx YNBiPb+aSs8IZQLWTdBKjPsqw8f1VZGq91xIM+BRHFmkQ7GTI/daPEKewqiamxdG9mHu KwrinicFW0UKo6/uYolT5P3zG4vfYgLhBVIOCyMDMTqAyK3pynRG6bmGd3cajFBOOJRQ 4jcwxG5zZwITEzgBcaN1JimGOCsI6b1GHHF1Vs209YjEznhfAo2tCh/NZqmuQKPgadHT +i6Q== X-Received: by 10.180.12.116 with SMTP id x20mr117405wib.10.1411539235981; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.96.196 with SMTP id du4ls690853wib.27.canary; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.81.226 with SMTP id d2mr3713822wiy.5.1411539235361; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -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 n6si261779wiv.0.2014.09.23.23.13.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -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-f174.google.com with SMTP id fb4so6217966wid.7 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.95.8 with SMTP id dg8mr5428147wjb.1.1411539235249; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.175.167 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5421EAFF.6070508@gmail.com> References: <54186B05.1000802@lojban.org> <54216771.9060804@gmail.com> <54217DB7.3040604@gmail.com> <5421EAFF.6070508@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:13:55 +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=047d7bdc0f56b4246b0503c996d5 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7bdc0f56b4246b0503c996d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2014-09-24 1:49 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > Gleki Arxokuna, On 23/09/2014 17:18: > >> 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>>>: >> Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/2014 17:57: >> 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. >> > > What document are you looking at? May be it doesnt even matter since no one works on this project. 1. "in part a reconciliation between Loglan and Lojban" from the first message of this thread. 2. "The Initiative has been created for the purpose of reconciling the differences between these two languages..." from https://github.com/LogosInitiative/logla I can't find anything relevant, and what I have seen in passing does not > imply that being "based on" or "sourced from" Lojban will entail > intertranslatability with Lojban. Indeed, anything intertranslatable with > Lojban would immediately suffer the very failings of Lojban, when the > project is intended to remedy Lojban's failings. What are its failings? The issue https://github.com/LogosInitiative/logla/issues/1 is fixed by constant expanding of the lexicon like it is done in all languages with lexicons open to expansion. That is, you want a logical language to yield a logical formula, not to > yield a translation into Lojban, which does not yield a logical formula. > > 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? >> > > Indeed. Do the rules that specify licit English sentences include > specification of tone? My answer is "Probably yes, but that isn't as > obvious as most people assume it is", tho I say that on the basis only of a > cursory study of English intonation. Let's wait for the author who replied to tonality of Toaq Dzu to reply themselves. > > > i wonder if there are non tonal languages except lojban. >> >> There are thousands that are as tonal as Lojban is. >> >> Most known examples? >> > > The large majority of other invented languages besides Lojban are not tone > languages, and of those, only a tiny minority have any specification for > intonation. I suppose you might argue that Lojban's putative audiovisual > isomorphism means it cannot have intonatioal rules, whereas for most > invented languages intonation rules are merely unspecified rather than > forbidden. If you were to argue that then I will concede your point. (My > own loglang has tone but -- by design -- not intonation.) only if intonation is formalized in 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. --047d7bdc0f56b4246b0503c996d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-24 1:49 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Gleki Arxokuna, On 23/09/2014 17:18:
2014-09-23 18:03 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Gleki Arxokuna, On 23/09/2014 13:44:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com = <mailto:and.ros= ta@gmail.com> <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>>:<= span class=3D"">
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/20= 14 17:57:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Second, the "clearly d= efined connection" between the dictionaries would work only if for eac= h word in the one language there is a word in the other language that alway= s translates it, and this one-to-one translation is explicitly stated.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The only way this is going = to happen is if the two languages are deliberately designed to be intertran= slatable.

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

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I don't think it is implied.

The Logos Initiative clearly states the sources.

What document are you looking at?

May be it= doesnt even matter since no one works on this project.
1. "= in part a reconciliation between Loglan and Lojban" =C2=A0from the fir= st message of this thread.
2. "The Initiative has been creat= ed for the purpose of reconciling the differences between these two languag= es..." from=C2=A0= https://github.com/LogosInitiative/logla

= I can't find anything relevant, and what I have seen in passing does n= ot imply that being "based on" or "sourced from" Lojban= will entail intertranslatability with Lojban. Indeed, anything intertransl= atable with Lojban would immediately suffer the very failings of Lojban, wh= en the project is intended to remedy Lojban's failings.

What are its failings? The issue=C2=A0https://github.com/LogosInitiativ= e/logla/issues/1 is fixed by constant expanding of the lexicon like it = is done in all languages with lexicons open to expansion.

That is, you want a logical language to yield a logica= l formula, not to yield a translation into Lojban, which does not yield a l= ogical formula.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 english is a tonal language.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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?

 Indeed. Do the rules that specify licit English sentences include specifica= tion of tone? My answer is "Probably yes, but that isn't as obviou= s as most people assume it is", tho I say that on the basis only of a = cursory study of English intonation.

Let= 9;s wait for the author who replied to tonality of Toaq Dzu to reply themse= lves.
=C2=A0


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 i wonder if there are non tonal languages excep= t lojban.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 There are thousands that are as tonal as Lojban is.

Most known examples?

 The large majority of other invented languages besides Lojban are not tone = languages, and of those, only a tiny minority have any specification for in= tonation. I suppose you might argue that Lojban's putative audiovisual = isomorphism means it cannot have intonatioal rules, whereas for most invent= ed languages intonation rules are merely unspecified rather than forbidden.= If you were to argue that then I will concede your point. (My own loglang = has tone but -- by design -- not intonation.)

only if intonation is formalized in 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.
--047d7bdc0f56b4246b0503c996d5--