Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.67.177.19 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of anaseto@bardinflor.perso.aquilenet.fr) client-ip=80.67.177.19;
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:14:23 +0000
From: Yon <anaseto@bardinflor.perso.aquilenet.fr>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article)
Message-ID: <20160927171423.GC31892@bardinflor.perso.aquilenet.fr>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <CACf3dPnrDiAn71GbvJNV4N-b1b408dvoQvchLy=K4iFNsiaetA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac181bfa-bb07-8412-ad27-4a5a9a529f42@gmx.de>
 <CACf3dPmNSYksDXevCPopkES9QBh6_D94BRO8f5-o2cALd7_=VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <309770757.1620403.1474910440149@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMKwHj2iaGyuwzo-WNa0DGayTHw03ESwRMPeku52uJPqBXaYOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f16a23af-25e3-4e8d-8e16-257934256c97@googlegroups.com>
 <CAFy4Kb38wBY_0G9vgFQ6sb8dF=GLccs3HjiOwc+PeMbd0fJd-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+jgEw5bn9coFo3uJRXXfPtLxxCrArOGrHrGspvB0fJd5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFy4Kb2OCXkUqJSMwCKsQ76jd8W-0Refkm+q+rx4RW7u0NjH=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+jkmqjiU8M3nYoYRONzKndH-3=cu8TvHhj3SXw14Hr+ng@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+jkmqjiU8M3nYoYRONzKndH-3=cu8TvHhj3SXw14Hr+ng@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

coi

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:07:54PM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> One important argument against this system is that people studying Lojban
> often incorrectly omit {lo} resulting in weird results under this system:
> {lo nixli je nanla} means "someone who is a girl and a boy at the same
> time."
As a nintadni, I suppose I will probably sometimes make this error, and
I think this is a very interesting point, but, I wonder, does it really
generate that much confusion in practice? I mean, in natural languages
there are many sources of confusion resolved by context even when you do
things right: at least in this case it would occur only when you make
actual mistakes.

> One might say that
> .ji, je'i, gi'i, .i je'i
> makes complications but it doesn't really belong to the series of logical
> connectives. This is a series of question words.
One thing I'm not sure about is: the proposed system seems to allow
the use of all non-logical connectives in forethought connectives too.
Is there a way to do that for all such connectives with the current
system? This part of the proposal seems from my naive point of view
quite orthogonal, and could be used with little change with the current
system, am I right?

> What exactly doesnt feel elegant to you? there are only 5 endings. The re=
st
> is about syntax. How is {je cu} better than {gi'e}? I dont get it.
I suppose it's at least a little more mnemonic because it uses two known
words, and in the mind of a nintadni like me, =C2=ABcu=C2=BB is some sort o=
f word
that says to elidable terminators =C2=ABclear the way, I want to say the
selbri=C2=BB.

That said, as a nintadni, I haven't for now experienced real problems
with connectives. I have found others parts of Lojban more confusing
(for example the quantifier stuff), even though I did know a bit of
predicate logic. And learning vocabulary for me is perhaps the hardest
part, and yet it is simpler than with natural languages (apart perhaps
for the big number of cmavo, but I hope one can do quite well knowing
only a reduced number of them).

.i mi'e la .anasetos.

--=20
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 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.