Received: from mail-it0-f55.google.com ([209.85.214.55]:33567) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1boqeM-0007ZN-Tz for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:34:19 -0700 Received: by mail-it0-f55.google.com with SMTP id x192sf4028337itb.0 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:34:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=/GKWI3QiQteh4Jm5iW0VbglmwzwL44dVADQoAKrGSsQ=; b=tHUSQE58DzP9VRGXm24L8JZ7jH+XGILWweqm49aKsJq/TZKru8Jf/uC/5M9E7UdXTt hOuDgariearWrXc1Pu8jQ36Y57LlVsVRR4a9u6kYl+DpM+JbZcOe455hvkiq0Sw2CCll 5V1Zh00hy1KzAlS7rPlhvbbajs5kFUnpb48LK+CKVNp459h7y4xhJ8BRCfDhjhAX77bn AK94LBV/FemtjOySr3YfAaV+TSFuQz3qH0VzVgLN+cV22/uwayUDYxfRXyHEzZ/d9LWX sli8+IKMIPeLO/W48wv2aUgZE+0niV77xP84shQHH/3vVi65Zvc0+8ZOaCsv7siVEwIp g/Ww== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=/GKWI3QiQteh4Jm5iW0VbglmwzwL44dVADQoAKrGSsQ=; b=fXsILUv3es78T95advZNXnNPuDX7qAhaTxUhHkg02WrRFShPDm9Gs32CXo+YhoM64w NmhvC5VfX+mvcccP5rq5bI2qkcq5WcHNnUX2wlTW9nGEJPrflosVutM4EtSScINSrtOl /YVKG3aZDVWPA0KdbkJxRZzZLtGHWZ+AYfVW8nv0WZXQ/tL/WTtoo3JJC546SM403OxF cTErIUnuofdIbvWjE9yxePzdy/MzqudOPNJI8R8JSh2RMI0pDantZiN4qERjPAZyNIrj 5XzqXWVjwLQ+ML3gllogJkTvRCrdShfWRnB7N/qob+QRE4FghYSXVIETB+85FLmBpcml CZFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=/GKWI3QiQteh4Jm5iW0VbglmwzwL44dVADQoAKrGSsQ=; b=UHzhm4NB4RTmEJ2eQUGX1bTjJQMYVi/pTbis9eZEADHLMmfErpa8zcbHMrbrQVZAAi xCW5PFvdA4dhfby8rpdiuAvBK1dklG9DGU3JLcyFS0F2L+QJ39Sqf6CT1DL/baYs8j+V bfKqU10wF0ZDRI2Jqi67v6O18LpfGCFoUUi8fyDbAzWz96W34Ve2E367wteWFK/fAbIk NO/MepU6jpb4yZfhtiQ4EfkcG47bS2O4GqPSyqiS34Ppno6cNGn0UaVXJBhRQuzriF/+ EEvYhDFlrfC1m4PJYMko6ZquOYaxHly3AW1vbP42wKmUixIvQPlAeKlQi18aiR3XGKbW fyLw== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RloAzai1dG792Ne0fJT2eac82ixYakldBoHMSpxeDIge0xMe5rUWxeHeE5RNebyVw== X-Received: by 10.157.55.181 with SMTP id x50mr1614640otb.7.1474976048768; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.2.1 with SMTP id 1ls16215141otb.4.gmail; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.39.131 with SMTP id c3mr1616715otb.15.1474976048503; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT) From: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com To: lojban Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <309770757.1620403.1474910440149@mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_330_1137884203.1474976048291" X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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: - ------=_Part_330_1137884203.1474976048291 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_331_2135285270.1474976048292" ------=_Part_331_2135285270.1474976048292 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Em segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016 21:31:11 UTC+3, aionys escreveu: > > Aha, I found .xorxes.'s proposal. Apparently it overloads {gi}, while this > one does not? > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg > You can also find a boiled down version of it. > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban < > loj...@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+un...@googlegroup s.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@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+un...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@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+un...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@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. ------=_Part_331_2135285270.1474976048292 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Em segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016 21:31:11 = UTC+3, aionys escreveu:
Aha, I found .xorxes.'s proposal. Apparently it overloads {g= i}, while this one does not?

https://groups.go= ogle.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg
<= div>
You can also find a boiled down version of it.
=C2=A0
=

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:20= AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <loj...@googleg= roups.com> wrote:
Since JC= B 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 tryi= ng 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.=C2=A0 To be sure, L= ojban has achieved the monoparsing with which it should have begun at the c= ost of Byzantine complexity (and questionable accuracy) But it seems unlike= ly that much reform can keep this result and cut through the mare's nes= t.=C2=A0 There are those that love the complexity and the documented struct= ure (the best documentation in the language business, after all) and -- des= pite occasional complaints about not getting more new people -- glory in th= eir isolated mastery, and=C2=A0 so they are not interested in "improve= ments".=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, fueled merely be convenience or clarity, are not likely= to occur.=C2=A0 Changes that add to complexity are always welcome, of cour= se. =C2=A0


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




On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpa= hi <sel...@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+un...@googlegroup s.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.=
Visit this group at htt= ps://groups.google.com/grou p/lojban.
For more options, visit https://gro= ups.google.com/d/op 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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.=
Visit this group at htt= ps://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://gro= ups.google.com/d/optout.

<= br>

--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.goo= gle.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 fat= her. :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.
------=_Part_331_2135285270.1474976048292-- ------=_Part_330_1137884203.1474976048291--