From sentto-44114-20252-1056724595-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Jun 27 07:38:38 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.70]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VuLh-0000pI-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:37:13 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-20252-1056724595-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jun 2003 14:36:39 -0000 X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 8383 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2003 14:35:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Jun 2003 14:35:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.36) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2003 14:35:00 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09926 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:34:21 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20030627143420.GA25004@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan 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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:34:21 -0400 Subject: [lojban] Better Communication of Ideas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5750 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Forwarded with the author's permission. I have set Reply-to: to him. Leo's not on Lojban List, so you may want to use "Reply All". ----- Forwarded message from "Leo J. Moser" ----- To: From: "Leo J. Moser" Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:09:13 -0700 Subject: [langdev] Better Communication of Ideas Laho, I have a question that begins with Lojban. This is not only to John Cowan, though he may be the one with the most info. on this specific aspect of the subject. It also goes to any who have explored Lojban and used and/or tested it in any way. And then on to all of you. I ask this as well of any other artlang with similar logical goals -- or with the aim of providing more effective communication than is typical of natlangs. What are the words and related vocabulary/terminology features of Lojban (in contrast to a natlang like English) that are found by users to be the most useful in actual practice. I'm talking not of the overall structure or its logical system, more of specific terms and/or grammatical particles that are found useful in communicating more clearly. In this, the comments of users is most important. What words, particles, terms, do they "fall in love with" in Lojban -- and find sadly lacking in all or many natlangs? What helps in everyday communication? Also I would like to know what artlangs any of you have made or learned about that have the goal of more effective communication of ideas. (Among humans -- effective communication in other species would differ with sensory systems, etc.) In the IAL world, Ido attempted to be more logical than E-o in many ways. Yet things like three tenses for infinitives did not seem favored in practice. Among natlangs, there are some that are often claimed to be more logical than others. (Some Francophones insist that French is far more logical than English.) Is there any evidence that some natlangs are more logical than others -- or otherwise better instruments of human communication? (Exclude size of vocabulary: Inuit may not have a term for some aspect of the genome structure. Also exclude writing systems, some are clearly easier and more efficient.) The problem looms: Can artlangs be engineered to be better for practical communication than existing natlangs? They can, of course, be made simpler (like Dublex ), more regular in operation (like Ido), more systematic (like Lojban ). But can they be made BETTER (once learned and in use) as instruments for communication and understanding? If so, how? What is lacking in natlangs that systems like that of Lojban or Vorlin can supply? This inquiry begins by asking about needed words and grammatical particles, etc. but can go beyond -- if there is much to say. Torvonwa, LEO ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com --Susan McCarthy (adapted) jcowan@reutershealth.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/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/