From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Nov 12 00:11:40 1996
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA16682 ; Tue, 12 Nov 96 00:11:29 GMT
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 847482416:06713:14; Fri, 08 Nov 96 19:46:56 GMT
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net
           id aa06459; 8 Nov 96 19:46 GMT
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 3148; Fri, 08 Nov 96 14:45:55 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 6111; Fri, 08 Nov 96 14:45:34 EDT
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:43:00 -0500
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
Subject:      Re: CONLANG: Simplicity
X-To:         Conlang List <conlang@diku.dk>,
              Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <847482365.6459.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


Markku Kuoppassa scripsit (on Conlang):

> Robin Gaskell cited Claudio Gnoli:
>
> CG> I am wondering about redundancy from time to time.
> CG> While I am planning a logical conlang, I tend to remove anything
> CG> seems "meaningless" or "useless", but I'm afraid in this way I miss
> CG> some important function which is hidden in natlangs, such as
> CG> redundancy.
>
> IMHO, many of the constructors of logical languages miss the point when it
> comes to the definition of "logic". If it is their aim to build a language
 that
> shall be parseable by a computer, eliminating redundancy certainly *is*
> desireable.

I don't see any connection between machine-parsability and lack of
redundancy (or the desirability thereof).  Lojban is machine-parsable,
but has redundancy in several places.

There is phonological redundancy: we exploit only fairly common
sounds, having only 24 phonemes.  There is morphological redundancy:
compound words can often have several forms, semantically identical,
but some shorter (less redundant), some longer (more redundant).
There is syntactic redundancy: more than one way to say sentences.

> But some seem to believe that such languages could be spoken by
> human beings.

Human beings have spoken Lojban, although no human beings have
*acquired* Lojban as native speakers.

> That would include the proposal that a human brain works in the
> same way as a computer.

Not at all.  I hold no such views, nor AFAIK does anyone at
Lojban Central.

--
John Cowan                                              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban