From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Aug 26 10:22:12 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E8htz-00045c-8v for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:22:03 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.77]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E8htw-00045K-O2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:22:03 -0700 Received: (qmail 13523 invoked by uid 60001); 26 Aug 2005 17:21:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20050826172159.13521.qmail@web81302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.32.165] by web81302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:21:59 PDT Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:21:59 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 10445 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 --- Ben Goertzel wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't mean to re-open the Loglish discussion > on this list; it was very > useful to me but has probably run its natural > course. > > However, for those who are interested, I have > posted a revised version of my > initial Loglish overview document, which > benefited greatly from the feedback > of those on this list. > > http://www.goertzel.org/new_research/Loglish.htm > > Naturally, me being who I am, there are > probably still some errors here and > there ;-) > > The next step in the development of the Loglish > concept would be the actual > implementation of a Loglish parser. One of my > colleagues plans to do this > over the next couple months, but we'll see if > it actually comes about and at > what rate! When/if a Loglish parser is > completed I'll put it online and > announce it here so y'all can appropriately and > good-naturedly rip it to > shreds ;-) Minor comments: You introduce {fi'o} as being like "qui" but have not said anything about "qui." I assume you mean {zei}, although {fi'o} does not - in your usage -- look much like {zei}. You use "la ben proceed lo to fi’o store" and the like, where Lojban with English vocab would have "la ben (cu) proceed fi'o to lo store' I suspect the {cu} is needed, since the limits of cmene is not defined in Loglish and the same would apply (at least in speech) to "la mei_li think vo'a" and subsequent examples. The point here however is about the relative order of "prepositions" and "articles." Example 2: la rena go le suburb be la Melbourne probably should be "la rena cu eng go lo suburb be la Melbourne;" {cu} as noted above, {lo} for indefinite reference, "eng go" per your earlier discussion. mi go le restaurant be loi Pakistan {mi} probably doesn't need {cu}. "eng go" as before, "loi Pakistan" is obscure to me for several reasons: 1) "restaurant" does not have a place for anything but the restaurant, so some other device is needed here -- depending on what the relation is (this is not too clear) 2) "Pakistan" is a proper noun not obviously a predicate, so one would expect {la} not {loi} 3) even if "Pakistan" is a predicate -- something like "pertain to the land, people or culture of Pakistan," say --the {loi}, for a collective, seems wrong. It does not work for "Pakistan" ="Pakistani" for it is unclear what collective of Pakistanis might be intended (the nearest thing to a P restaurant here is run by New Yorkers of Jewish extraction and staffed by Mexicans, so it is not the staff and mangement that is necessarily meant). mi djuno ledu’u zo’e kau cilre la loglish Well, {loglic} to begin with (or {loglec}, if the short vowel seems more natural). I can't figure out {zo'e kau} in Lojban: {kau} attaches to interrogative words to signal indirect questions, so maybe {ma kau} is meant: "I know who is learning Loglish." This misses the first half of the English (except by implication -- if I know who it is there must be someone). On the other hand, without the {kau} in the original, we get the not very illuminating "I know that (you know who/someone it doesn't matter who) is learning Loglish," which misses the second part. the problems carry over to the Loglish (I think {zo'e} is a bad choice here in any case, but that seems to be idiosyncratic). la Ben cu murder lo chicken lo weapon fi’o pliers Realtive order of {lo} and {fi'o} again (and maybe of {fi'o} and "weapon," but I have to see how this plays out. You later claim that this cannot be a chicken with pliers, but the resolution appears to be semantic, not grammatical. Lojban would insist on a grammatical disambiguation. Later references to "qui" rather than {zei}. 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.