Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::330 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::330;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <18776223.2757089.1586622570213.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <18776223.2757089.1586622570213@mail.yahoo.com> <c29378ec-fcee-40c8-8c42-b0a807d85ddf@googlegroups.com>
 <CACtk4+C8FqtmCh22YyPcRPiAecFLf8TuHkz8ru-JiHKbbjkceg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6fe62be6-21b6-40b7-98b6-0f4e0072df47@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+BOX=1HLsDPpYnnF4F5udZYZW1L9n87bhWw6t4rwYzKhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8eb60e09-2aa3-4e14-b37e-f716ea06ecfe@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+CQVWmW8_=i-t4nT01vLg9QsXebhCYGip8NqkvyD6enhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1137a1b7-cd6f-4c7c-b2cc-f38e8b4abb3f@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+D0NF3ghV8wzD=oOv+ijrSiuNH3pgg5Ctn3JDMEO4nQxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e00859fc-e0cf-44f2-9c1a-c6ae178f647e@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+D7EusQg-W1=0d0919aGZgVKVO2043A4ogiostyWXM5fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <59cebb85-184c-49ed-9556-438ca75de05f@googlegroups.com> <CACtk4+APMZbXATy1_xAUouvqxTiQr0sZ06x7XxmLJ-WBxVEWGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f1e41358-15f6-469a-9623-11725854d112@googlegroups.com> <110320343.2935330.1586699696926@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <110320343.2935330.1586699696926@mail.yahoo.com>
From: "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 11:01:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOYwWb1u3HfzkLk=WK3OM=1qxa9kMMmJvzbm_cKH7h+pEAdyaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Why Lojban fails
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000351c9f05a3193eb5"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.6
X-Spam_score_int: -25
X-Spam_bar: --

--000000000000351c9f05a3193eb5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:55 AM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Oh, my!  I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not
> achieve its goal as presently constituted.  I learn (I=E2=80=99ve been aw=
ay a
> while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car abou=
t
> its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable languag=
e
> out of the scraps.
>

Do you have evidence that the Lojbanist community as a whole has abandoned
the goal of "monoparsing" (which I take to mean self-segregating morphology
and unambiguous grammar)?  There may be a couple people who feel it's
unimportant, but in my experience, if you leave out a {ku}, you *will* be
corrected.  As far as I am aware, *all* of the experimental parsers and
*all* of the major reform proposals, e.g. as Solpahi's connective reform,
honor monoparsing (they simply rely on >1 lookahead).  I am not sure why
you believe that Lojbanists no longer care about monoparsing.  The opposite
is true, as far as I can tell.

As far as your words "[Lojban's] primary goal, monoparsing" -- that's to me
like saying "a house's primary goal, having a stable foundation".  In my
view, the primary goal of a logical language is to have a formal semantics,
and a formal grammar is a requirement for that, just as the primary goal of
a house is to be lived in, and having a stable foundation is a requirement
for that.


>
> My immediate question is, =E2=80=9CGiven that Lojban no longer strives fo=
r
> monparsing, what reason is there to continue working on it or learning it=
?=E2=80=9D
>  In the past, all the grotesqueries of Lojban morphology and grammar coul=
d
> be justified as necessary for the Great Goal.  But now that that Goal is
> gone, they merely constitute needless complexities that make learning the
> language even harder.  Stripping away the 47 kinds of commas (and God
> forbid you should use the wrong one, even though it no longer makes a
> crucial difference) (=E2=80=9947=E2=80=99 is merely a ridiculously large =
number, not meant
> to be accurate) would make the language easier to learn and do that
> systematically for all the word classes would eventually get to something
> manageable. But there would still be no reason to learn it, because it
> doesn=E2=80=99t do anything that English (etc.) doesn=E2=80=99t do, nor d=
o it in a novel
> and revealing way.
>

Let's be honest.  Rex May showed in the 1980s that the unambiguous
morphology could be made not only simpler but *extremely* simpler, and both
the makers of Xorban and the grossly underrated Richard Morneau showed that
the unambiguous grammar could be made not only simpler but *extremely*
simpler.  Lojban is based on a rather clumsy (though original and
interesting and exciting in 1960) prototype clumsily complexified by
decades of patches upon patches.  I guess people stick with it because it
has something the other languages do not have (namely a history and a
community), though that may eventually change.  Already Toaq has an active
user community and I predict other languages will be coming online in the
next few years.  But I also predict the Lojban community will continue to
exist.


> If I counted right, there are at least nine version of Lojban floating
> around with adherents.  The winnowing process is presumably already at wo=
rk
> and some of these are close to languages of one grumpy guy in a garret.
> Some have people in LLG offices (big whoop!).  Some have decent sized (sa=
y
> 12) groups here and there. What can any of these offer to newbies or
> possible converts to get them to join?  Nothing, really.  So, they will a=
ll
> fade away (the LLG section running on on inertia).
> I recommend that all of you take a weekend off and learn toki pona (maybe
> start Friday night and leave a little time over breakfast on Monday). You
> will have a new language with a purpose (you can choose from half a dozen
> at least).  And you don=E2=80=99t lose the rights to constantly snipe at =
tiny
> infractions by your colinguals and to get into abstruse debate about
> details of grammar.  After all, I am in the middle of it.
>

I will not be jumping on the Toki Pona parlor-game bandwagon any time
soon.  Toki Pona is ridiculously overhyped and grossly overrated in my
opinion, is full of its own problems, is a total joke and cop-out in terms
of usability ("just don't have words!" -- wow, brilliant idea, Sonya; that
solves everything), and certainly does not represent a satisfactory
language for those of us seeking a better logical language.

-Mike

--=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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/CAOYwWb1u3HfzkLk%3DWK3OM%3D1qxa9kMMmJvzbm_cKH7h%2BpEAdyaA%40mail.gma=
il.com.

--000000000000351c9f05a3193eb5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D=
"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:55 AM &#39;John E Clif=
ford&#39; via lojban &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com">lojban@=
googlegroups.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Ari=
al,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
        <div dir=3D"ltr">Oh, my!=C2=A0 I merely meant to drop a friendly re=
minder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted.=C2=
=A0 I learn (I=E2=80=99ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or ot=
her or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but ar=
e concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.</div></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you have evidence that the Lojbanist com=
munity as a whole has abandoned the goal of &quot;monoparsing&quot; (which =
I take to mean self-segregating morphology and unambiguous grammar)?=C2=A0 =
There may be a couple people who feel it&#39;s unimportant, but in my exper=
ience, if you leave out a {ku}, you *will* be corrected.=C2=A0 As far as I =
am aware, *all* of the experimental parsers and *all* of the major reform p=
roposals, e.g. as Solpahi&#39;s connective reform, honor monoparsing (they =
simply rely on &gt;1 lookahead).=C2=A0 I am not sure why you believe that L=
ojbanists no longer care about monoparsing.=C2=A0 The opposite is true, as =
far as I can tell.<br><br></div><div>As far as your words &quot;[Lojban&#39=
;s] primary goal, monoparsing&quot; -- that&#39;s to me like saying &quot;a=
 house&#39;s primary goal, having a stable foundation&quot;.=C2=A0 In my vi=
ew, the primary goal of a logical language is to have a formal semantics, a=
nd a formal grammar is a requirement for that, just as the primary goal of =
a house is to be lived in, and having a stable foundation is a requirement =
for that.<br></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><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sa=
ns-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr"> =C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"ltr">My =
immediate question is, =E2=80=9CGiven that Lojban no longer strives for mon=
parsing, what reason is there to continue working on it or learning it?=E2=
=80=9D =C2=A0In the past, all the grotesqueries of Lojban morphology and gr=
ammar could be justified as necessary for the Great Goal.=C2=A0 But now tha=
t that Goal is gone, they merely constitute needless complexities that make=
 learning the language even harder.=C2=A0 Stripping away the 47 kinds of co=
mmas (and God forbid you should use the wrong one, even though it no longer=
 makes a crucial difference) (=E2=80=9947=E2=80=99 is merely a ridiculously=
 large number, not meant to be accurate) would make the language easier to =
learn and do that systematically for all the word classes would eventually =
get to something manageable. But there would still be no reason to learn it=
, because it doesn=E2=80=99t do anything that English (etc.) doesn=E2=80=99=
t do, nor do it in a novel and revealing way.<br></div></div></div></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>Let&#39;s be honest.=C2=A0 Rex May showed in the 1=
980s that the unambiguous morphology could be made not only simpler but *ex=
tremely* simpler, and both the makers of Xorban and the grossly underrated =
Richard Morneau showed that the unambiguous grammar could be made not only =
simpler but *extremely* simpler.=C2=A0 Lojban is based on a rather clumsy (=
though original and interesting and exciting in 1960) prototype clumsily co=
mplexified by decades of patches upon patches.=C2=A0 I guess people stick w=
ith it because it has something the other languages do not have (namely a h=
istory and a community), though that may eventually change.=C2=A0 Already T=
oaq has an active user community and I predict other languages will be comi=
ng online in the next few years.=C2=A0 But I also predict the Lojban commun=
ity will continue to exist.<br><br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Hel=
vetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><div dir=3D"=
ltr">If I counted right, there are at least nine version of Lojban floating=
 around with adherents.=C2=A0 The winnowing process is presumably already a=
t work and some of these are close to languages of one grumpy guy in a garr=
et.=C2=A0 Some have people in LLG offices (big whoop!).=C2=A0 Some have dec=
ent sized (say 12) groups here and there. What can any of these offer to ne=
wbies or possible converts to get them to join?=C2=A0 Nothing, really.=C2=
=A0 So, they will all fade away (the LLG section running on on inertia).</d=
iv><div dir=3D"ltr">I recommend that all of you take a weekend off and lear=
n toki pona (maybe start Friday night and leave a little time over breakfas=
t on Monday). You will have a new language with a purpose (you can choose f=
rom half a dozen at least).=C2=A0 And you don=E2=80=99t lose the rights to =
constantly snipe at tiny infractions by your colinguals and to get into abs=
truse debate about details of grammar.=C2=A0 After all, I am in the middle =
of it.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I will not be jump=
ing on the Toki Pona parlor-game bandwagon any time soon.=C2=A0 Toki Pona i=
s ridiculously overhyped and grossly overrated in my opinion, is full of it=
s own problems, is a total joke and cop-out in terms of usability (&quot;ju=
st don&#39;t have words!&quot; -- wow, brilliant idea, Sonya; that solves e=
verything), and certainly does not represent a satisfactory language for th=
ose of us seeking a better logical language. <br><br></div><div>-Mike<br></=
div><br></div></div></div></div></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 view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb1u3HfzkLk%3DWK3OM%3D1qxa9kMMmJvzbm_cKH7h%2BpEAdyaA=
%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.go=
ogle.com/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb1u3HfzkLk%3DWK3OM%3D1qxa9kMMmJvzbm_cKH7h%2Bp=
EAdyaA%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--000000000000351c9f05a3193eb5--