Received: from mail-yb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:33229) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bpNCg-0001FP-8X for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:19:55 -0700 Received: by mail-yb0-f189.google.com with SMTP id e2sf1243694ybi.0 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:19:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-length:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=EqvEpsujv7UGC4FkODS/Y9WLli4Peb8QlsT3wB8yLSQ=; b=xRQb9no8bxtzDZLpnhwgiADN7iSsdCNzbE7GE1pe1SuwXQl7FvbF/AP2IH4n6qtHa5 M8fN88pxOniPrde55lOyKbSFgjobZtSWIIYP17c3wNKJ8+jGx5F3SpX6H7H6jfTTPhV+ UwsqKlw1y0G9prhO8uMH7fRDULxu+lNLu7XdXataBt0ZGTMkFb8twfKT2fEinR/YLHe1 20/kOJ2om3ThxWXT19koo+oph+GKobpUJrHyEZjrry0XprsWdECLVCmt/oi19iwPJ4dK pyK98dAHCFltvH+lEUWJjMDjgQLoOuvvLGGSdYXMOugEWLewgqNsbney5zJIQ4IrqQEg Mx/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-length:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=EqvEpsujv7UGC4FkODS/Y9WLli4Peb8QlsT3wB8yLSQ=; b=ipbZDYF5UGKEs5594SVu2rS8oiTMprv6dULkEaMqDy86p+RivoKVvJOxJvlnogQUr5 XMIBx1JYgv1X4CTBstHclcPmzHrLqepeOo49y52Tb7VmQXv2LEHhkUH+FDLrt/lCbUPD gJcDW2yH4oHOVuH35BhVk0vrU94ivMB7bDvyDzmAl/CFMtFc6AXqY9mL5cB9Kf+djXWt i6xNIR82B+LQsZcDzsc79Y8SiUdLEw5uX6U85Taf07pYcYlz0EhajKg3rC8i9dc1nC14 EZqMTd7cRJTsvmsQ9Yf2JFJyYCmD0sDwxTZl3pVq28A+lA5J5z7sH3d2PyQpNcFE8ZCO WkCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rk5h0wuqLYa6YsujG+Ih7Hl8D7kb5ligZ8wjWS2nBrzjqRXxo6oVYj01bLhXkScjQ== X-Received: by 10.157.31.26 with SMTP id x26mr2819747otd.11.1475101184232; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:19:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.5.171 with SMTP id 40ls1314653otd.49.gmail; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:19:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.18.211 with SMTP id g77mr4275981otg.43.1475101183868; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm16.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm16.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com. [98.139.212.175]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v21si702235ywa.7.2016.09.28.15.19.43 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.212.175; Received: from [98.139.215.141] by nm16.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2016 22:19:43 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.245] by tm12.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2016 22:19:43 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1054.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2016 22:19:43 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 188556.94130.bm@omp1054.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: t1czLL8VM1ngavqz5YQpTMeEQJSV4xYfHVThJvZixmlWNBf7AscfvvlG453HnuU Mo7gPLKfUba7_36a6XCnJ3BRZxKg7lCU0M5V0d933hL_3thpH8mxNyw6._v93Qg7ZK1_n52TY2OM Lyfz5PBT0QfQb.KH5H0JfL5vfTbHMG07Ms0BDk5j6PSE2h1zPuGV_wC0k8Brh56YaiMb.q3RwaSd 7wvdvlwZSNeLmKhUr3m8pOoDxTdxnVXajY0Xkha_pNqF6Ha7s7dL85rtqebXeQav0cu8aA.p0sya YxZwJixLmL_E9pweVmze20zZ4srN6wVtJpATob5GfegDPwXGUtzYcm2x9zBQRDHuaYzwI4N9bnY7 FF516m2ybEDpRORq5Nj6EXQVhmVJiaiBxv3wr_lkmHBvc.Cfl7tZkfZkgmmDItbEGEPRoVrG3JsJ N8f5RY2uiL3IxRAWxMnxjm7OXAJqzdeWegbg_.MN7heZJjw4qGlaL2SEYJKpoin650ha3SEzOPeW d40M43AtTcmmkAt.V1dRvi2uX.dsSbS6jQm4hAbOYdU0rNgsuENHS Received: from jws106239.mail.bf1.yahoo.com by sendmailws126.mail.bf1.yahoo.com; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:19:42 +0000; 1475101182.672 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:19:29 +0000 (UTC) From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Message-ID: <1757882431.1185190.1475101169929@mail.yahoo.com> 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/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1185187_1984828281.1475101169909" Content-Length: 45188 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.175 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.com X-Original-From: John E Clifford 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: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_1185187_1984828281.1475101169909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Right, there are only sentential connectives (how else could they be truth = functional, after all?).=C2=A0 All {A x conj y B} come from {A x B conj A y= B} in the same way.=C2=A0 It is an early and persistent flaw of Logjam tha= t the local grammar of x and y is often lost in a maze of secondary matter,= since, ultimately, there are only terms and predicates and they are (or ou= ght to be) obviously distinct.=C2=A0 (That they are not at the crucial poin= t is thanks to JCB's initial decisions, one of which was to make the connec= tions between terms primary, against the logic he was supposedly following = -- and even against SAE, which he was actually following, usually.)=20 =20 On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:57 PM, MorphemeAddict wrote: =20 I disagree about the five concepts. There is only one: connecting like con= structs. The constructs may have five different shapes or structures, but t= he connection is only one.=C2=A0 stevo On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: 2016-09-27 15:56 GMT+03:00 Susannah Doss : My experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definitely not in the= system itself but in how it is taught. CLL by design is not a tutorial, and other textbooks by far only tried to c= opy it, successfully or unsuccessfully. The new system is much more intuitive than the old. I don't think that is e= ntirely due to how it is taught. Having 5 words to remember instead of 26 i= s nice=C2=A0assuming 5 can do the work of 26. I already tried this system and now hate it. You can't judge by the number of words. One important argument against this system is that people studying Lojban o= ften 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= ." With the standard system an attempt to do that simply leads to an ungrammat= ical thing that can be easily detected without delving whether the text can= be meaningful at all. The parser immediately warns of{lo nixli .e nanla.} The correct thing is {lo nixli .e lo nanla.} The connective system is pretty simple: .a, ja, gi'a, .i ja.e, je, gi'e, .i jeetc.One might say that.ji, je'i, gi'i= , .i je'imakes complications but it doesn't really belong to the series of = logical connectives. This is a series of question words. Similarly, non-logical connectives like jo'u are used primarily to connect = nouns (lo sumti). And when they connect other elements these are in majorit= y of cases proposals to break their semantical/grammatical silliness. Yes, you can't judge by the number of words. The point is that there are indeed 5 distinct concepts and they simply cann= ot be replaced with one. {.e} connects nouns, {gi'e} connects tails of clau= ses etc. They all are simple enough to remember since they all have the same "suffix= " -e.Variations of these mad proposals (initially proposed in year 1996) do= not replace these 5 concepts but simply use the same word for some structu= res.Please, note that this {je cu} is no difference from {gi'e}. It is stil= l not {je}. Other arguments include:2. breaking the meaning of {cu} as pointe out by la= tsani.3. always keeping in mind where you can elide {cu} and where you can= not (as the paper with the proposal itself mentions)4. always keeping in mi= nd garden path sentences (what did I use {je} for? For a sumti or for somet= hing else?) Interestingly, that the original proposals by la xorxes look even more elab= orated. There you would use {gi je} instead of {gi'e}. In another proposal = it was {vau je} instead of {gi'e}. Although of course it's no win. You stil= l have to remember this construct {gi je} is a single entity just like you = remember {lo nu} or {lo ka}. I've been reading the CLL in various sections throughout the book and I ha= ven't come across as much concept confusion as I have when attempting to ma= ke it through the section on the connective system. CLL is indeed not a tut= orial, but I feel like I gain much more understanding out of it than readin= g the textbooks. It makes everything make sense and feel connected with the= top-down view. I feel the theoretical basis for old connective system isn'= t great. It doesn't feel elegant. What exactly doesnt feel elegant to you? there are only 5 endings. The rest= is about syntax. How is {je cu} better than {gi'e}? I dont get it. It doesn't seem to fit within the Lojban language as well as other concept= s. I don't really notice others using the connectives too much either in th= e IRC. But errr, I may have not been paying the closest attention. I can at= least speak for myself in that the old system confuses the hell out of me = when reading about it in CLL compared to reading other concepts in CLL. I want to use connectives but I don't know how! But I suppose now after using this system you know perfectly what they are,= do you?=C2=A0 On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: 2016-09-27 15:18 GMT+03:00 Susannah Doss : As a=C2=A0nintadni=C2=A0whose opinion arguably doesn't matter that much*, I= 've avoided using connectives because I was horribly confused by what I've = read about the existing system.=C2=A0.i .ie ji'a lo frica nintadni cu tugni= lo du'u mi'a cinmo lo xrani .uanmonai=C2=A0There were so many words to rem= ember for different situations! When I read the new proposal, I immediately= understood the proposed system. It seems much more elegant than the existi= ng system. I really like it.=C2=A0.i lo mibypre cu pa'itce lo melbi selti'i My experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definitely not in the= system itself but in how it is taught.CLL by design is not a tutorial, and= other textbooks by far only tried to copy it, successfully or unsuccessful= ly. * to .i a'o lo mrilu mibziljmina cu nalkansa lo donynabmi toi .i ki'e la zabna donpre.i mi'e la .suzanys. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, wrote: 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/foru m/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg 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 wrote: Since JCB through out the basic structure of FOPL on day one of the develop= ment of Loglan and decided to graft a pseudo form onto a SAE base, things l= ike trying to simplify the conjunction system have been a matter of ever in= creasing complexity, interrupted occasionally by attempts to get back to th= e 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 complexity (and questionable accuracy) But it seem= s unlikely that much reform can keep this result and cut through the mare's= nest.=C2=A0 There are those that love the complexity and the documented st= ructure (the best documentation in the language business, after all) and --= despite occasional complaints about not getting more new people -- glory i= n their isolated mastery, and=C2=A0 so they are not interested in "improvem= ents".=C2=A0 Mere improvers are also too tied up in the status quo to consi= der 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 oc= cur.=C2=A0 Changes that add to complexity are always welcome, of course. = =C2=A0=20 =20 On Monday, September 26, 2016 11:41 AM, And Rosta w= rote: =20 =20 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 follow= s that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to its lef= t. 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, 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 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, minimizin= g hearer backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I think no.)=C2=A0 Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi'i} is elid= ible 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, an= d 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 t= o 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 tha= t terminators are the Lojban way; but a reason for preferring terminatorles= s alternatives is that they can potentially involve incremental parsing wit= hout lookahead, which I think is psycholinguistically much less taxing, and= that terminators are psycholinguistically alien. --And. =C2=A0 Thank you for your comment. ~~~mi'e la solpa'i --=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+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. --=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+un...@googlegroups.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. --=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+un...@googlegroups.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. --=20 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 ) --=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@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. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to pic/lo= jban/ewQLBEaH52s/unsubsc ribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. --=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@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. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to pic/lo= jban/ewQLBEaH52s/unsubsc ribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. --=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. --=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. =20 --=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. ------=_Part_1185187_1984828281.1475101169909 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Right, there are only sentential connectives (ho= w else could they be truth functional, after all?).  All {A x conj y B= } come from {A x B conj A y B} in the same way.  It is an early and pe= rsistent flaw of Logjam that the local grammar of x and y is often lost in = a maze of secondary matter, since, ultimately, there are only terms and pre= dicates and they are (or ought to be) obviously distinct.  (That they = are not at the crucial point is thanks to JCB's initial decisions, one of w= hich was to make the connections between terms primary, against the logic h= e was supposedly following -- and even against SAE, which he was actually f= ollowing, usually.)


On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:57 PM= , MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree about the five concepts. There is only one: c= onnecting like constructs. The constructs may have five different shapes or= structures, but the connection is only one. 

stevo

On Tue= , Sep 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gm= ail.com> wrote:


2016-09-27 15:56 GMT+03:00 Susannah Doss <= span dir=3D"ltr"><susannah.j.d@gmail.com>:
=
My experience with lo nintadni is that the problem is definitely not= in the system itself but in how it is taught.
CLL by des= ign is not a tutorial, and other textbooks by far only tried to copy it, su= ccessfully or unsuccessfully.

The new system is much more intuitive than the old. I don't think that i= s entirely due to how it is taught. Having 5 words to remember instead of 2= 6 is nice assuming 5 can do the work of 26.
<= div>
I already tried this system and now hate = it.

You can't judge by the number o= f words.

One important argument aga= inst 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 tim= e."

With the standard system an att= empt to do that simply leads to an ungrammatical thing that can be easily d= etected without delving whether the text can be meaningful at all. The pars= er immediately warns of
{lo nixli .e nanla.}

The correct thing is {lo nixli .e lo nanla.}

The connective system is pretty simple:
.a, ja, gi'a, .i ja
.e, je, gi'e, .i je<= /div>
etc.
One might say that
.ji, je'i, gi'i, .i j= e'i
makes complications but it doesn't really belong to the serie= s of logical connectives. This is a series of question words.
Similarly, non-logical connectives like jo'u are= used primarily to connect nouns (lo sumti). And when they connect other el= ements these are in majority of cases proposals to break their semantical/g= rammatical silliness.

Yes, you can'= t judge by the number of words.

The point is that there are indeed 5 distinct concepts and = they simply cannot be replaced with one. {.e} connects nouns, {gi'e} connec= ts tails of clauses etc.

They all are simple enough to remember since they all have the sam= e "suffix" -e.
Variations of these mad proposals (initially propo= sed in year 1996) do not replace these 5 concepts but simply use the same w= ord for some structures.
Please, note that this {je cu} is no dif= ference from {gi'e}. It is still not {je}.

Other arguments include:
2. breaking the meaning of {cu} = as pointe out by la tsani.
3. always keeping in mind where you ca= n elide {cu} and where you cannot (as the paper with the proposal itself me= ntions)
4. always keeping in mind garden path sentences (what did= I use {je} for? For a sumti or for something else?)

Interestingly, that the original proposals by la xorxes l= ook even more elaborated. There you would use {gi je} instead of {gi'e}. In= another proposal it was {vau je} instead of {gi'e}. Although of course it'= s no win. You still have to remember this construct {gi je} is a single ent= ity just like you remember {lo nu} or {lo ka}.


<= blockquote class=3D"yiv8829058744gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0= .8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;">
I've been reading the CLL in various sections throughout the book and= I haven't come across as much concept confusion as I have when attempting = to make it through the section on the connective system. CLL is indeed not = a tutorial, but I feel like I gain much more understanding out of it than r= eading the textbooks. It makes everything make sense and feel connected wit= h the top-down view. I feel the theoretical basis for old connective system= isn't great. It doesn't feel elegant.

What exactly doesnt feel elegant to you? there are only 5 = endings. The rest is about syntax. How is {je cu} better than {gi'e}? I don= t get it.


It doesn't seem to fit within t= he Lojban language as well as other concepts. I don't really notice others = using the connectives too much either in the IRC. But errr, I may have not = been paying the closest attention. I can at least speak for myself in that = the old system confuses the hell out of me when reading about it in CLL com= pared to reading other concepts in CLL.

I= want to use connectives but I don't know how!

But I suppose now after using this system yo= u know perfectly what they are, do you?
 

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:30 = AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> = wrote:


<= span>2016-09-27 15:18 GMT+03:00 Susannah Doss <susannah.j.d@gmail.com= >:
As a nintadni = whose opinion arguably doesn't matter that much*, I've avoided using co= nnectives because I was horribly confused by what I've read about the exist= ing system. .i .ie ji'a lo frica nintadni cu tugni lo du'u mi'a cin= mo lo xrani .uanmonai There were so many words to remember for dif= ferent situations! When I read the new proposal, I immediately understood t= he proposed system. It seems much more elegant than the existing system. I = really like it. .i lo mibypre cu pa'itce lo melbi selti'i
=

My experience with lo ninta= dni is that the problem is definitely not in the system itself but in how i= t is taught.
CLL by design is not a tutorial, and other textbooks= by far only tried to copy it, successfully or unsuccessfully.

*= to .i a'o lo mrilu mibziljmina cu nalkansa lo donynabmi toi

.i ki'e la zabna donpre
.i mi'e la .suzanys.

<= div>On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.= com> wrote:
<= span>

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/foru m/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg

You can also find a boiled down= version of it.
 

<= br clear=3D"none">
On Mon, Sep= 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <<= a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"">loj...@googlegroups.com>= wrote:
Since JCB throug= h out the basic structure of FOPL on day one of the development of Loglan a= nd decided to graft a pseudo form onto a SAE base, things like trying to si= mplify the conjunction system have been a matter of ever increasing complex= ity, interrupted occasionally by attempts to get back to the basic underlyi= ng simplicity -- with scarcely visible success.  To be sure, Lojban ha= s achieved the monoparsing with which it should have begun at the cost of B= yzantine complexity (and questionable accuracy) But it seems unlikely that = much reform can keep this result and cut through the mare's nest.  The= re are those that love the complexity and the documented structure (the bes= t documentation in the language business, after all) and -- despite occasio= nal complaints about not getting more new people -- glory in their isolated= mastery, and  so they are not interested in "improvements".  Mer= e improvers are also too tied up in the status quo to consider scrapping th= e mess and starting over on the right foot this time.  So, changes, fu= eled merely be convenience or clarity, are not likely to occur.  Chang= es that add to complexity are always welcome, of course.  


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



=

On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi <= span dir=3D"ltr"><sel...@gm= x.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
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 follow= s that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to its lef= t. 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, 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 it were tryin= g 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 elid= ible 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 conju= ncts of JA3, and would require two {gi'i}s (terminating JA3 and JA2) to mar= k 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 f= irst of my two objections. A reason for preferring the terminator over alte= rnatives is that terminators are the Lojban way; but a reason for preferrin= g terminatorless alternatives is that they can potentially involve incremen= tal parsing without lookahead, which I think is psycholinguistically much l= ess 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 e= mail to lojban+un...@googlegro= up s.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@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 "= lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+un...@googlegro= ups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@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.

<= br clear=3D"none">
--
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+un...@googlegro= ups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@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.



--
mu'o mi'e .aiony= s.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denp= a 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 e= mail 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/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 a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to pic/lojban/ewQLBEaH52s/unsubs= c ribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/gro= u p/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/o= p tout.

<= div>
--
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@googlegroup s.com.
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 a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to pic/lojban/ewQLBEaH52s/unsubs= c ribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/gro= u p/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/o= p tout.

<= div class=3D"yiv8829058744HOEnZb">
--
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/ gr= oup/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 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+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_1185187_1984828281.1475101169909--