Received: from mail-oi0-f57.google.com ([209.85.218.57]:33830) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bocgP-0000xL-1S for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:29 -0700 Received: by mail-oi0-f57.google.com with SMTP id i193sf55556493oib.1 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:24 -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=4z9dvU8iT3eksI3dgqn8avsZPVL6M0Hcr3BQD0J7jOk=; b=vyBNUoWt17vVEPgozjhL3THJ8vMJnOWkZi6mCFl6Y/uCqVkf0h+VUNoZcbVa8qBRX2 BSo4xnVSXDdhhXElH9Y1q3iM/M3wUtEWvpfEEHasF0ljzzmQwXVtXHEZgZWeZdFD7fRZ PZ6YfKkiwafJFuzL4Czsy1ZWKK/IXgTjJrNAWtKMxjagTDLIXLjAVcFse7tVLsP1f+iI 6ot0FuMv0ME3ig2BkRBVWo7U2MgGHuJfHxTCRB4UQNR/k8e0L7gfreNNyFTe4OM2GDS3 cmKwh6UcHCyeHHVS1Pr1n4WhksABGF/fxG94OnSC1V2NMF1be1hCXrN1Jcjl+4QSZ5xo eLiQ== 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=4z9dvU8iT3eksI3dgqn8avsZPVL6M0Hcr3BQD0J7jOk=; b=syTKQIoditGsWjlAriW7SzUkn1xYKTA6SOy0OGlU3zq7GPL4WNd9IGhX2/D3Yi18C9 9FIbhDWdbZ5cgOIqS7MwYtl2I3bhnRj8PDlSPhRGQfHESyd9Z+Cyj6bn85EPsLhko3e2 mHxtmgLtt7/ly9tyeCAeqqZncvPqgaqn1JcazuFx3WRpvEIU0Osp8hFmKurSdGMucyma 77tguVUNJrVOIfyeVX0TtemYh4M3jIVLfDP1FAJzU3V+S02pG2NwqF8dNwMiVcULnV7m osdRvYYn3ouaCX+L/Rj0OyQZpFN0QdNwPSS+JzZVurIa1HUrB7lLBeZwZYHFaNpf3mLO XSLA== 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=4z9dvU8iT3eksI3dgqn8avsZPVL6M0Hcr3BQD0J7jOk=; b=fNuTQkAv2gBy3yhy7rmw8ne39DtrQV/Ahiz1fju+sJ2GihwVSjZZVxw6l68XSqpSQY HPwnfVIf6gE7/fChScDdQhr83XTC5q0msWKOlTA74cNeyxnI6DMmXT9XmrSVAVX2XOKE gaKILQx5AZMmMhiVTuApSJxmdZd1zUUb2lsgto/wHDpxkIDGfso6uU9NP5nZ3ONXYS6z umLnhLijTCozJePawBwqXyUNKrnlMXLYbu7qMpF0kQxpzk6DKLiMg/9DWTdNKgzJAx1o pNvg5YZu8485AFSOnaJt+Pq+4egLa2pdLwnAgXU1YUBXCwiodV4g/EwUQQzJpJUSsWyv Af+g== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnZ2Fa3aN40PD5Ad5xRvcA3qrH2nnKk9WmkqEFSynoZIx0Kzv3abmhpJdZ9VMDdOg== X-Received: by 10.36.50.145 with SMTP id j139mr782807ita.9.1474922358812; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.39.6 with SMTP id n6ls8436312ion.17.gmail; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.73.160 with SMTP id e32mr5019236itd.25.1474922358058; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com (mail-it0-x235.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 137si757211ith.2.2016.09.26.13.39.18 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235; Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u134so23145050itb.1 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.223.196 with SMTP id r187mr19269708itg.2.1474922357714; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.183.4 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:39:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <309770757.1620403.1474910440149@mail.yahoo.com> From: Remo Dentato Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:39:16 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article) To: lojban Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b170a33f472053d6f1f59 X-Original-Sender: rdentato@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rdentato@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: - --94eb2c0b170a33f472053d6f1f59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I've always found the connective system too complex. I never really managed to understand it in its entirety (and I suspect very few did). To me this seems really a case where the Lojban community as all to gain from this change. My only question would be if the peg grammar can be updated to reflect this change but I understand that an experimental parser including this change has already been made, so I'm fine with that. P.S. I had missed the other "Simpler" article, which I favor as well. Again, the increase in simplicity would be huge and breaking compatibility with current lojban would be worthy. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > 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. > -- 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. --94eb2c0b170a33f472053d6f1f59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've always found the connective system too compl= ex. I never really managed to understand it in its entirety (and I suspect = very few did).

To me this seems really a case where the Lojban comm= unity as all to gain from this change.=C2=A0 My only question would be if t= he peg grammar can be updated to reflect this change but I understand that = an experimental parser including this change has already been made, so I= 9;m fine with that.

P.S. I had missed the other "Simpler&= quot; article, which I favor as well. Again, the increase in simplicity wou= ld be huge and breaking compatibility with current lojban would be worthy.<= br>

On Mon, = Sep 26, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> = wrote:
Aha, I found .xor= xes.'s proposal. Apparently it overloads {gi}, while this one does not?=

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/<= wbr>ExtEumbYoQg

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'J= ohn 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 g= raft a pseudo form onto a SAE base, things like trying to simplify the conj= unction system have been a matter of ever increasing complexity, interrupte= d occasionally by attempts to get back to the basic underlying simplicity -= - with scarcely visible success.=C2=A0 To be sure, Lojban has achieved the = monoparsing with which it should have begun at the cost of Byzantine comple= xity (and questionable accuracy) But it seems unlikely that much reform can= keep this result and cut through the mare's nest.=C2=A0 There are thos= e that love the complexity and the documented structure (the best documenta= tion in the language business, after all) and -- despite occasional complai= nts about not getting more new people -- glory in their isolated mastery, a= nd=C2=A0 so they are not interested in "improvements".=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 So, changes, fue= led merely be convenience or clarity, are not likely to occur.=C2=A0 Change= s that add to complexity are always welcome, of course. =C2=A0


=
On Monday, September 26= , 2016 11:41 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


=


=
On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi <= seladwa@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/gro= up/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 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 &= 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.

--
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.
--94eb2c0b170a33f472053d6f1f59--