Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c09::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::234;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89cbea69-a503-4b15-a0bc-975221ca4fa9@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <38c97c6d-7f22-48da-a55e-c748fbdb830f@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+jm9UuNmogmm6xVkuKEO6F64+H-jscFwQKthrW1B3GOVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <89cbea69-a503-4b15-a0bc-975221ca4fa9@googlegroups.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 11:58:19 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+hr_XEfZOQvD07g6Lym6qyeVsdT3HTgEzZnnQ6NeZEYRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045dbc5cab44dd055d9d2175"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

--f403045dbc5cab44dd055d9d2175
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2017-11-10 11:46 GMT+03:00 <sukender1@gmail.com>:

> Gleki,
>
> First of all, my intent was not to offense anyone. But it seems, from you=
r
> answer, that you were a bit... annoyed? Irritated??
>

No, I just pointed out incorrect statements about Lojban in your list.

Indeed, defining Lojban by "Lojban 1987" is a bit light, IMHO! I understand
> you'd like to avoid drifting much from the 1987 definition. But this
> definition is even not clear to me (hence the summary)!
> Well, I was just trying to sum up things with a twofold goal: make it
> clear (to myself, to anyone not "expert"), and establish a kind of base
> rules to highlight what may NOT go in evolutions of Lojban (which brings =
me
> to the next point below...).
>
> Just to make it clear: are you against evolving Lojban or not?
>

No answer from me.


> I guess no, but I'm asking because your short answer may be
> (mis)interpreted as "I want Lojban to be forever what it was in 1987".
> Personally, I feel like engraving a standard into stone is not a good ide=
a.
> I bet the best that can happen is evolution in a very "controlled" and
> "well thought" way; that is to say not "anyone making forks in any
> direction", and not "merging ideas 'as they come' into the standard" (suc=
h
> as "macarena" words... What a bad joke!).
>
> About your answer: you're right, most languages are machine parsable. But=
:
> 1. I was talking about Lojban only.
>

Defining Lojban via Lojban? Then why not "Lojban is Lojban" definition?

2. This doesn't make other languages "non ambiguous" (in grammar).
>

How? Please, provide examples how other languages are ambigous. Notice that
some constructed languages (like TLI Loglan) are said to have exactly the
same as Lojban in the same formalism.


> I personally like Lojban because it is so unique
>

So is English, which is English and not non-English.


> : compared to languages I speak, it removes a whole burden of exceptions,
> ambiguities, and weird stuff. Well, all of these particularities also mak=
e
> those natural langues unique, but not in the way it would help learning
> them.
>

Despite that more people speak Abkhaz than Lojban.


> As for cultural neutrality, yes, it is indeed discutable. Maybe this woul=
d
> be moved to the "desirable" section?
>

So you break descriptivism and move into either politics or some "Future
Lojban".


> But as many pointed out, and despite the fact gismu used some natural
> languages as sources, Lojban sounds/looks like no other.
>

Sounds to whom? To me (not a native English speaker)  Lojban is the
language most close to English compared to major spoken languages in the
world.

And there is no emphasis on any culture, right?
>

Of course, therefore no word for Mozambique culture, a word for Malay
culture is enough.


> Maybe only some biases from time to time (to fix?). From my point of view=
,
> this is where it differentiates from Esparanto, which is closely related =
to
> Latin languages (I don't talk Esperanto, so correct me if I'm wrong).
>

To the languages the founder spoke (Latin, Polish, German, Yiddish, Russian
and somewhat French, English ...)


> "Auxiliary language" may come with the previous point, too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> la .sykynder.
>
>
> Le vendredi 10 novembre 2017 07:44:12 UTC+1, Gleki Arxokuna a =C3=A9crit =
:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-11-09 23:48 GMT+03:00 <suke...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> *YES!*
>>>
>>>    - Non-ambiguous grammar (~=3D monoparsing, machine parsable)
>>>
>>>
>> English is also machine parsable. See Stanford parser and many more.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>    - Unicity (~=3D forks are experiments or proposals)
>>>
>>> so are many constructed languages including programming ones.
>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>    - Cultural neutrality
>>>
>>> The list of core verbs (gismu)  was borrowed from TLI Loglan and there
>> from the list of core concepts in major European language. Cultural
>> neutrality?
>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>    - Partially based on logic
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Rather stable ("rather" has to be refined)
>>>    - Usable (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)
>>>    - Usage defines the language, as long as these "basics" are
>>>    untouched.
>>>       - However the "usage" is rather a blurry situation for now...
>>>
>>> I have an alternative definition of what is Lojban:
>> * Lojban is a language called Lojban and created in 1987.
>>
>> Yes!
>> * named "Lojban"
>> * created in 1987
>>
>> No!
>> * named "English"
>> * doesn't yet have a single word for "to dance Macarena"
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *NO!*
>>>
>>>    - Immutable base grammar, and immutable base vocabulary (cmavo,
>>>    important gismu...)
>>>    - Targeted to be TOTALLY based on logic
>>>    - Ideal (or "perfect") language (la .pycyn. pointed out that issue)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Maybe desirable, but impossible*
>>>
>>>    - Backward-compatibility of versions (added after what la
>>>    .timoteios. said)
>>>    - Fully formal and complete grammar (as Gleki and And Rosta said)
>>>    - Keep strictly what original designers wanted (because they could
>>>    not foresee all potential issues)
>>>
>>> They also wanted it to be an international auxiliary language, btw.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

--=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.

--f403045dbc5cab44dd055d9d2175
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2017-11-10 11:46 GMT+03:00  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:suk=
ender1@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">sukender1@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Gle=
ki,</div><div><br></div><div>First of all, my intent was not to offense any=
one. But it seems, from your answer, that you were a bit... annoyed? Irrita=
ted??</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, I just pointed out in=
correct statements about Lojban in your list.</div><div><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> Indeed, def=
ining Lojban by &quot;Lojban 1987&quot; is a bit light, IMHO! I understand =
you&#39;d like to avoid drifting much from the 1987 definition. But this de=
finition is even not clear to me (hence the summary)!</div><div>Well, I was=
 just trying to sum up things with a twofold goal: make it clear (to myself=
, to anyone not &quot;expert&quot;), and establish a kind of base rules to =
highlight what may NOT go in evolutions of Lojban (which brings me to the n=
ext point below...).</div><div><br></div><div>Just to make it clear: are yo=
u against evolving Lojban or not?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>No answer from me.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> I guess no, but I&#39;m asking be=
cause your short answer may be (mis)interpreted as &quot;I want Lojban to b=
e forever what it was in 1987&quot;. Personally, I feel like engraving a st=
andard into stone is not a good idea. I bet the best that can happen is evo=
lution in a very &quot;controlled&quot; and &quot;well thought&quot; way; t=
hat is to say not &quot;anyone making forks in any direction&quot;, and not=
 &quot;merging ideas &#39;as they come&#39; into the standard&quot; (such a=
s &quot;macarena&quot; words... What a bad joke!).</div><div><br></div><div=
>About your answer: you&#39;re right, most languages are machine parsable. =
But:</div><div>1. I was talking about Lojban only.</div></div></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>Defining Lojban via Lojban? Then why not &quot;Lojban i=
s Lojban&quot; definition?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,2=
04);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>2. This doesn&#39;t make other =
languages &quot;non ambiguous&quot; (in grammar).</div></div></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>How? Please, provide examples how other languages are am=
bigous. Notice that some constructed languages (like TLI Loglan) are said t=
o have exactly the same as Lojban in the same formalism.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div>I personally like Lojban because it is so unique</div></div=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So is English, which is English and not n=
on-English.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>: compared to languages I speak, it remove=
s a whole burden of exceptions, ambiguities, and weird stuff. Well, all of =
these particularities also make those natural langues unique, but not in th=
e way it would help learning them.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>Despite that more people speak Abkhaz than Lojban.</div><div><br></div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br=
></div><div>As for cultural neutrality, yes, it is indeed discutable. Maybe=
 this would be moved to the &quot;desirable&quot; section?</div></div></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>So you break descriptivism and move into either=
 politics or some &quot;Future Lojban&quot;.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px=
 solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> But as man=
y pointed out, and despite the fact gismu used some natural languages as so=
urces, Lojban sounds/looks like no other.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>Sounds to whom? To me (not a native English speaker)=C2=A0 Lojba=
n is the language most close to English compared to major spoken languages =
in the world.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> And there is no emphasis on any culture, =
right?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Of course, therefore no =
word for Mozambique culture, a word for Malay culture is enough.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div> Maybe only some biases from time to time (to fix?). From my point=
 of view, this is where it differentiates from Esparanto, which is closely =
related to Latin languages (I don&#39;t talk Esperanto, so correct me if I&=
#39;m wrong).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To the languages =
the founder spoke (Latin, Polish, German, Yiddish, Russian and somewhat Fre=
nch, English ...)</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>&quot;Auxiliary language&=
quot; may come with the previous point, too.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheer=
s,</div><div><br></div><div>la .sykynder.</div><div><br></div><br>Le vendre=
di 10 novembre 2017 07:44:12 UTC+1, Gleki Arxokuna a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<div>=
<div class=3D"gmail-h5"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><=
div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2017-11-09 23:48 GM=
T+03:00  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a rel=3D"nofollow">suke...@gmail.com</a>&gt=
;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"=
ltr"><div><b><u>YES!</u></b><br></div><div><ul><li>Non-ambiguous grammar (~=
=3D monoparsing, machine parsable)<br></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>English is also machine parsable. See Stanford parser and=
 many more.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><ul><li></li><li>Unicity (~=3D forks are e=
xperiments or proposals)<br></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>so are =
many constructed languages including programming ones.=C2=A0</div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><ul><li></li=
><li>Cultural neutrality<br></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>The lis=
t of core verbs (gismu)=C2=A0 was borrowed from TLI Loglan and there from t=
he list of core concepts in major European language. Cultural neutrality?</=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div=
><ul><li></li><li>Partially based on logic</li></ul></div></div></blockquot=
e><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><=
ul><li>Rather stable (&quot;rather&quot; has to be refined)<br></li><li>Usa=
ble (speakable, learnable, writable, readable...)<br></li><li>Usage defines=
 the language, as long as these &quot;basics&quot; are untouched.</li><ul><=
li>However the &quot;usage&quot; is rather a blurry situation for now...=C2=
=A0</li></ul></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>I have an alternative defin=
ition of what is Lojban:</div><div>* Lojban is a language called Lojban and=
 created in 1987.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes!</div><div>* named &quot;Loj=
ban&quot;</div><div>* created in 1987</div><div><br></div><div>No!</div><di=
v>* named &quot;English&quot;</div><div>* doesn&#39;t yet have a single wor=
d for &quot;to dance Macarena&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-le=
ft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br><=
/div><div><b><u>NO!</u></b></div><div><ul><li>Immutable base grammar, and i=
mmutable base vocabulary (cmavo, important gismu...)<br></li><li>Targeted t=
o be TOTALLY based on logic<br></li><li>Ideal (or &quot;perfect&quot;) lang=
uage (la .pycyn. pointed out that issue)<br></li></ul></div><div><b><u><br>=
</u></b></div><div><b><u>Maybe desirable, but impossible</u></b></div><div>=
<ul><li>Backward-compatibility of versions (added after what la .timoteios.=
 said)<br></li><li>Fully formal and complete grammar (as Gleki and And Rost=
a said)<br></li><li>Keep strictly what original designers wanted (because t=
hey could not foresee all potential issues)<br></li></ul></div></div></bloc=
kquote><div>They also wanted it to be an international auxiliary language, =
btw.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br><div class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><div class=3D"gmail-h5">
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
d/topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/unsubscribe" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.go=
ogle.com/d/<wbr>topic/lojban/e94H-wdh5gc/<wbr>unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+un=
subscribe@<wbr>googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/<wbr>optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--f403045dbc5cab44dd055d9d2175--