Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rPOj0-00007NC; Wed, 4 Jan 95 07:57 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA28346 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:57:33 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HLFS3TI3E80011YF@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Wed, 04 Jan 1995 05:56:49 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4856; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 06:54:14 +0100 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 1995 00:56:56 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Goals Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Logical Language Group Message-id: <01HLFS3TIWLE0011YF@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: jlk@NETCOM.COM X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1875 Lines: 33 >I think it is unrealistic >to have awkward and prolix expressions for frequently used concepts. As >you know, the reason some expressions are short is their high >frequency. So long as lojban design ignores this law of language it >will pay the price of disuse. I am second to none in my respect for Zipf's Law, howsoever it may apply to such problems as this. BUt what is NOT clear is whether these expressions are short because they are frequently used, or vice versa, or whether the length is particualrly important in how the particular expression is phrased - Zipf's law is statistical in nature and every language has idiomatic forms that are used even though there are shorter forms available. But Lojban has been committed to ignore Zipf's law in other design features that are FAR more important than the particular issue of more or less vague interval offsets in tenses. Most noteworthy of course is the singular plural distinction - to be explicitly singular or plural requires greater length than the corresponding form in English and most other languages (but not all). If such distinctions are as important as their ghigh frequency would dictate (rather than the frequency of distinction being an artifact of the language having a mandatory singular/plural distinction), then Lojban fails your standard in this area from the get-go. But there are always tradeoffs in languages. If LOjban comres to be used and useful, it will be because it offers other advantages that far outweigh a few extra syllables, especially in restricted domains of the language like this one where it is relatively easy to come up with idiomatic or template forms for expressing exactly what you want. Where Zipf's law is more likely to hurt Lojban is if there is some important distinction between conceopts that cannot be expressed without many-term tanru or lujvo. lojbab