From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 15 11:49:02 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E4k0z-0001vY-Qn for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:48:53 -0700 Received: from [208.234.8.229] (helo=intelligenesiscorp.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E4k0w-0001vG-K8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:48:53 -0700 Received: from zombiethustra (pcp06586041pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [69.140.24.121]) by intelligenesiscorp.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id j7FImh6p023497 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:48:47 -0400 From: "Ben Goertzel" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:48:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20050815141724.13027.qmail@web81305.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10368 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ben@goertzel.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > This is definitional, of course, but, since, for > the most part, Loglan syntax is a subset of > English syntax (formally speaking, of course), > the name seems to fit. The point is that > keeping people to that subset is very difficult > if they are native speakers (or even very fluent) > in the full set. I'm not sure.. In a sentence like "la Ben cu murder lo chicken lo pliers quu weapon" half the words are Lojban/Loglish cmavo and half are English, and if you take out the cmavo you certainly don't have syntactical English... I don't really think that sticking to Loglish syntax instead of English syntax would be a major problem, but as I said before, trying to learn to speak Loglish fluently is really the only way to resolve this issue. Unfortunately I've forgotten most of the smattering of Lojban I learned 6 months ago, so for me becoming fluent in Loglish will require some effort... > It is not clear what percentage of ambiguity is > which, especially since they often go together > (different syntactical structures often rely on > different readings of the same word -- or > conversely). But English words are generrally > very ambiguous (even when we stick to a single > etymology for a phonemic sequence) and this will > carry over into Loglish to its disadvantage > (relative to Lojban at least). I suspect that the need to specify word-sense using qui would push Loglish speakers to habitually use less ambiguous English words. For instance "ko get lo tape" is ambiguous because "tape" could be the sticky kind or the music kinds, so one could specify it using "ko get lo tape qui music" but it's easier to just say "ko get lo cassette" -- Ben To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.