From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Mar 18 15:02:37 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:02:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DCQU8-0000Xf-8w
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:02:28 -0800
Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DCQU5-0000IP-KP
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:02:28 -0800
Message-ID: <20050318230154.13401.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:01:54 PST
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:01:54 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 9613
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> As I recall, someone tried to do combinatorics
> on
> selbri to expalin especially tanru (hence
> lujvo)
> in a systematic way.  This was probably in the
> 80's so was likely not published (it was about
> Loglan, then).  I don't recall any details
> (and,
> not being able to find even my copy of To Mock
> a
> Mockingbird, let alone a serious book, would
> not
> like to reconstruct any of them).  I think
> though
> you are right: that {se} is C; but also the
> rest
> of SE is very complex, even with defined
> operators.

Hoops!  C converts <abc> into <acb>, not <bac>,
so {se} is fairly complex too.  C is Lojban's
(never used) {setese}.
 
> --- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> > Yah, you're right -- even with my primitive
> > level of Lojban knowledge, I can see that SE
> > cmavo could be removed without dramatic loss
> of
> > usability (though as a fan of combinatory
> > logic, I would hate to see them go .. se is
> > what is called the C combinator in
> combinatory
> > logic ;-)
> > 
> > ben
> >   ----- 
> >   > With Lojban, clearly there are no (or
> > hardly any) mechanisms that
> >   > could be removed and still leave the
> > language usable.....  
> > 
> >   Not true.  You could drop all of the mekso
> > cmavo, FA, and SE with
> >   only very minor restrictions resulting.  In
> > fact, (with my parser at
> >   least), you could drop BAI, which is the
> > largest cmavo group in the
> >   language, as well.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>