From sentto-44114-19930-1054010477-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon May 26 21:41:55 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 21:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.83]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KWHV-00020B-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 21:41:49 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19930-1054010477-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2003 04:41:18 -0000 X-Sender: tk1@despammed.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 95113 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 04:41:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 May 2003 04:41:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (203.125.29.19) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 04:41:16 -0000 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 501) id 49EA922882; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:44:30 +0800 (SGT) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20030527044429.GA1170@panda.localdomain> References: <1054002208.941.90505.m9@yahoogroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1054002208.941.90505.m9@yahoogroups.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: tk1@despammed.com X-Yahoo-Profile: c1tk MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:44:29 +0800 Subject: [lojban] Beginner's take on the open/closed gismu debate (was: Re: emotions) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5428 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: tk1@despammed.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Hello all, With regard to the current debate on whether gismu should be open or closed, I am not very sure what my position is, but I think a more pernicious problem is the tendency for some users to introduce nonce lujvo (e.g. in Chapter 2 of "Alice in Wonderland", I see the word "camri'ojvebla" (?!?)). Perhaps it would be a good idea to require all new lujvo to be defined in terms of existing Lojban terms _using_ _Lojban's_ _predicate_ _logic_ _facilities_ -- among other things, this should improve the `portability' of the Lojban language definition to other extant languages. The same strategy may also be applicable to certain gismu, to ameliorate the bloated gismu problem. For instance, something like this may work: forall x (nanmu(x) <=> (nakni(x) /\ remna(x))) With regard to the tension between the machine parser and the EBNF specification: I downloaded John Cowan's latest official parser (version 3.0.00), and while I was able to read the EBNF, the machine parser refused to compile on my system. Though I can try to hack it until it compiles, that will mean I am an arrogant fool trying to change the Lojban language definition, so I am not sure what is the best thing to do here. Thanks, -- GPG:f75949318a026c5707ff188b438cca87faf73a82 http://angelfire.com/folk/sm0p/ GCS/MU d- s: a- C++() UL P++(+++) L++(+++) E- W++ N(+) o K? w--- O? M? V? PS(+) PE Y+ PGP+ t? 5? X- R- tv-() b+ DI(+) D+ G e++ h-- !r>+++ !y ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/