Received: from mail-pa0-f64.google.com ([209.85.220.64]:33299) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1boagO-0000YX-CP for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:20 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f64.google.com with SMTP id fi2sf17405292pad.0 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=lS5MOtVFBRI2s42WX7ZSrpVBANFaRWjg8erJykjlkVI=; b=Tbe+0Eyg75tc/IAW3txp6RBRCAW4+D3hZaMqaJVBf4XQQxe0l81Z24v3YLYm3+OtU0 ifukYxGOo+X9gFw4IdHYaAC7MwmA0k7ouGXFkrWh+YuRQlbnetFXcl1qMoM1sM2wWkBj pS4/RZwtoaI7I0YeH4EQ8fueHjg4fYCmgMXhhDVv9mSKzBktDcTiG4/RD4JYXhEN6ESo 5jCQhxzzq/LR2/veRrOu1nFDj45AIj69mtKz/2NaaGozpVb8BmY1OG9wRRafhg4e5hY9 2VnEwFe8uSV+oxzuZK1cjbHgcIuNvYqzEmjdWPNUeButA8NlhOhn1r9QkQxWYO+jJOCK IDIA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=lS5MOtVFBRI2s42WX7ZSrpVBANFaRWjg8erJykjlkVI=; b=Ss6bTUxE4EHsEz8+Y81grSOmBmI65QOVDQgQ9Gzu7qk7yZAbgAbGHyac6jSYYJRrcN WBNKjZm9dyQQh92QrLKgx3AJuxK3yWD3aWJVXrrFg6oHT4BForqyt3ko/oYTuuaO3P0P avmwT3oeWzy0cX8Vt3ed4W22MEhxt5AxCmZMPbRiO5MqX1SOsg7C0Z210RJ4Qr3n0eCd Dz4S0o30TAD5USRNMeXemY8ZIUAuOX56wlqpBR75uNiMqC3hpZ5wIUbBwwV/gqGi4KEF 4uR5uCTYcNTiE71Hp0nQZomddrSTKclHAPG2+L9G4n1x0/JYHGZfvDGclmwx9lyvyjCG 6XSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=lS5MOtVFBRI2s42WX7ZSrpVBANFaRWjg8erJykjlkVI=; b=CfeMQHRoa88LPbJRXOm48przElk1s8ZSTAnVLGFK0pmo8s9o6aLZ4t2IPuyuoxPyjD Z9+RwRtmXvrvxWKajC7Rq5QTiMSn97KrbbvEHIyDdU13b/X6Ee4RszfWRsnAH6wdQmFv aWwVyzBIvYCFEb5pd7Kv2WRjng+n2TUwPhMeFFiZFvjCMvw4bpR2uK3jty6BxH04qPHT wkKcPSV9WHgJsK+fFhhzlzrZvwe5qkd5DIuxfZ51JDDcEcuDtYb74QWU29N+5bgk/noj R5B1ZjFBRqIxkHPUD6KxaVBN42hHX/ZrJrl/wVqrT92PwQs10tqvGycPTaaHtbDs+Q7D Sv/g== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RliFUhoMdIWyhbuqIKwAimsd/b16EZO/NvqV2FshPumxGcPOBrFU3qwZICn6xxFkw== X-Received: by 10.157.39.131 with SMTP id c3mr1443852otb.15.1474914670542; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.12.40 with SMTP id 37ls11764635otr.25.gmail; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.200.41.47 with SMTP id y44mr5930368qty.27.1474914670256; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p193si1445385ywe.6.2016.09.26.11.31.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c; Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t67so163174877ywg.3 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.129.102.7 with SMTP id a7mr19193727ywc.355.1474914660148; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:31:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.172.150 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:30:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <309770757.1620403.1474910440149@mail.yahoo.com> References: <309770757.1620403.1474910440149@mail.yahoo.com> From: Jonathan Jones Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:30:58 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article) To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114905b8646bc8053d6d54da X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=eyeonus@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-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - --001a114905b8646bc8053d6d54da Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Aha, I found .xorxes.'s proposal. Apparently it overloads {gi}, while this one does not? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Since JCB through out the basic structure of FOPL on day one of the > development of Loglan and decided to graft a pseudo form onto a SAE base, > things like trying to simplify the conjunction system have been a matter of > ever increasing complexity, interrupted occasionally by attempts to get > back to the basic underlying simplicity -- with scarcely visible success. > To be sure, Lojban has achieved the monoparsing with which it should have > begun at the cost of Byzantine complexity (and questionable accuracy) But > it seems unlikely that much reform can keep this result and cut through the > mare's nest. There are those that love the complexity and the documented > structure (the best documentation in the language business, after all) and > -- despite occasional complaints about not getting more new people -- glory > in their isolated mastery, and so they are not interested in > "improvements". Mere improvers are also too tied up in the status quo to > consider scrapping the mess and starting over on the right foot this time. > So, changes, fueled merely be convenience or clarity, are not likely to > occur. Changes that add to complexity are always welcome, of course. > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 11:41 AM, And Rosta > wrote: > > > > > On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi wrote: > > On 26.09.2016 16:43, And Rosta wrote: > > Having given the matter about .0001% of the thought you have, I wonder > whether the gi'i terminator is optimal. Firstly it would not always be > easy to work out on the fly when it is and isn't elidable, so the > prudent strategy would be to leave it in except when certain it is > elidable. Secondly, when it isn't elided it adds an extra word and two > extra syllables. A better alternative would be to introduce medial > conjuncts with _go_ rather than _gi_, and use _gi_ only for introducing > final conjuncts: {ga JA A go B go C gi D}. (Or, one step neater, use > _gu_ for medial conjuncts and _go_ for the tanru coordination > introducer. Or _ge_.) > > > The only times {gi'i} would not be elidible is if another connective > follows that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to > its left. In all other cases {gi'i} is elidible, because each {gi} can only > devour exactly one sumti, after which the entire connection ends > automatically. > > Your strategy with {go} would involve much more forethought than this, > because you would have to be absolutely certain that you only want to add > exactly one more item. > > > Yes, but in designing an ergonomic loglang -- which okay, Lojban isn't and > doesn't aspire to be, but we're kind of imagining if it were trying to be > -- should minimizing speaker forethought be prioritized over, say, > minimizing hearer backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I think no.) > > > > Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi'i} is > elidible would not be easy? > > > I was thinking of {ga JA1 ga JA2 ga JA3 A gi B gi C gi D gi E gi F gi G gi > H gi I gi J gi K}, which I presume would treat A--K as conjuncts of JA3, > and would require two {gi'i}s (terminating JA3 and JA2) to mark the > intended structure (whatever it is). Have I misunderstood? I suppose it's > not hard to work out that gi'i is unelidable, so I will withdraw the first > of my two objections. A reason for preferring the terminator over > alternatives is that terminators are the Lojban way; but a reason for > preferring terminatorless alternatives is that they can potentially involve > incremental parsing without lookahead, which I think is > psycholinguistically much less taxing, and that terminators are > psycholinguistically alien. > > --And. > > > > > > Thank you for your comment. > > ~~~mi'e la solpa'i > > > -- > 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@googlegroup s.com > . > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/lojban > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout > . > > > -- > 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a114905b8646bc8053d6d54da Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Aha, I found .xorxes.'s proposal. Apparently it overlo= ads {gi}, while this one does not?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!top= ic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'John E Clifford= 9; via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Since JCB through out the basic structure of FOP= L on day one of the development of Loglan and decided to graft a pseudo for= m onto a SAE base, things like trying to simplify the conjunction system ha= ve been a matter of ever increasing complexity, interrupted occasionally by= attempts to get back to the basic underlying simplicity -- with scarcely v= isible success.=C2=A0 To be sure, Lojban has achieved the monoparsing with = which it should have begun at the cost of Byzantine complexity (and questio= nable accuracy) But it seems unlikely that much reform can keep this result= and cut through the mare's nest.=C2=A0 There are those that love the c= omplexity and the documented structure (the best documentation in the langu= age business, after all) and -- despite occasional complaints about not get= ting more new people -- glory in their isolated mastery, and=C2=A0 so they = are not interested in "improvements".=C2=A0 Mere improvers are al= so too tied up in the status quo to consider scrapping the mess and startin= g over on the right foot this time.=C2=A0 So, changes, fueled merely be con= venience or clarity, are not likely to occur.=C2=A0 Changes that add to com= plexity are always welcome, of course. =C2=A0


On Monday, September 26, 20= 16 11:41 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:




On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi <sela= dwa@gmx.de> wrote:
On 26.09.= 2016 16:43, And Rosta wrote:
Having given the matter about .0001% of the thought you have, I wonder
whether the gi'i terminator is optimal. Firstly it would not always be<= br clear=3D"none"> easy to work out on the fly when it is and isn't elidable, so the
prudent strategy would be to leave it in except when certain it is
elidable. Secondly, when it isn't elided it adds an extra word and two<= br clear=3D"none"> extra syllables. A better alternative would be to introduce medial
conjuncts with _go_ rather than _gi_, and use _gi_ only for introducing
final conjuncts: {ga JA A go B go C gi D}. (Or, one step neater, use
_gu_ for medial conjuncts and _go_ for the tanru coordination
introducer. Or _ge_.)

The only times {gi'i} would not be elidible is if another connective fo= llows that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to its= left. In all other cases {gi'i} is elidible, because each {gi} can onl= y devour exactly one sumti, after which the entire connection ends automati= cally.

Your strategy with {go} would involve much more forethought than this, beca= use you would have to be absolutely certain that you only want to add exact= ly one more item.

Yes, but in designing an ergonomic loglang -- which okay, Lojban i= sn't and doesn't aspire to be, but we're kind of imagining if i= t were trying to be -- should minimizing speaker forethought be prioritized= over, say, minimizing hearer backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I thi= nk no.)
=C2=A0

Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi'i} is = elidible would not be easy?

I was thinking of {ga JA1 ga JA2 ga JA3 A gi B gi C gi= D gi E gi F gi G gi H gi I gi J gi K}, which I presume would treat A--K as= conjuncts of JA3, and would require two {gi'i}s (terminating JA3 and J= A2) to mark the intended structure (whatever it is). Have I misunderstood? = I suppose it's not hard to work out that gi'i is unelidable, so I w= ill withdraw the first of my two objections. A reason for preferring the te= rminator over alternatives is that terminators are the Lojban way; but a re= ason for preferring terminatorless alternatives is that they can potentiall= y involve incremental parsing without lookahead, which I think is psycholin= guistically much less taxing, and that terminators are psycholinguistically= alien.

--And.


=C2=A0

Thank you for your comment.

~~~mi'e la solpa'i


--
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@googlegroup s.co= m.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.= com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/gro= u p/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/o= p tout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/<= wbr>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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
mu'o mi'e .= aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi p= atfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
=

--
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= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a114905b8646bc8053d6d54da--