Message-ID: <3454C405.68@locke.ccil.org> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:40:37 -0500 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Taoist and Buddhist texts (was Re: FANVA) References: <199710270647.BAA22901@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Status: RO Content-Length: 84287 la .ed. cusku di'e: > This scripture is very similar to the Hindu saying, > 'neti, neti', usually translated 'not this, not that'. Obviously a late and corrupt form of the grand original: "na'eboti na'ebota". -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Mon Oct 27 21:15:19 1997 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:15:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280215.VAA07517@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: machine translation X-To: David Barton X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710261859.NAA00404@hudson.wash.inmet.com> Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 687 On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, David Barton wrote: > Geoff writes: > > Fair enough, but then why learn a whole new language to do what existing > languages can already do? > > Because Lojban is spoken, as other language (CycL, Z notation, LSL, > PVS, etc.) are not. Well, you wouldn't call C++ a spoken language, but I can certainly "say" C++ code to other people who know C++, and have them understand me. To me having a language that you could also talk to your nextdoor neighbour in over the fence is a fantastic oddity, but it wouldn't really be a priority. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see whether Lojban catches on. :) I wish you all the best of luck. Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Mon Oct 27 21:29:02 1997 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:28:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280228.VAA08121@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2060 On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 bob@megalith.rattlesnake.com wrote: > ... Everything I can say in English is > harder for me to say in Lojban, .... > > To me, the following is easier in Lojban: > > .i lo mi ke xekri bunre mlatu zu'a vu pu'o kalte le cmacu > > than English: > > Far to the left of me, one or more entitites that truly is or are > one or more than one dark or black type of brown type of cat, and > is `mine' or `ours' in some fashion, is or was or will be on the > verge of hunting what I designate as mouse although it may be > something else. > > Even if you know the context (I only have one black/brown cat, I am > looking out my window on my left into the field), the English is still > quite hard: > > Far to the left of me, my dark brown cat has not yet begun to hunt > a mouse although I am confident she is in the state that is prior > to the beginning of a hunt. > > English lacks spatial tenses like {zu'a} and event contours like > {pu'o}, so an English translation is either longer or less definitive > than the Lojban. > Where English is less definitive, Lojbanists say, "English is less definitive!" Where Lojban is less definitive, Lojbanists say, "English overspecifies!" It's all so polemical. You sound like Esperantists. :) Looking at your above sentence, and before reading your English translation, I would simply have said, "Far to the left of me, a dark brown cat of mine is about to catch the mouse." That's not difficult to say and I could have sworn it conveyed all the *relevant* information. Notice I say "a dark brown cat of mine" rather than "my dark brown cat", because the former implies that you don't have in mind a specific cat, which "lo" clearly dictates. This goes back to issues of specificity and veridicality, which have been hammered out in previous threads. Speaking for myself, I think using "lo" when you really do have in mind something specific is simply incorrect and is only ever going to cause confusion. Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Mon Oct 27 21:56:27 1997 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:56:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280256.VAA09302@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: SWH again (was Re: What's going on here?) X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EIP00IMUZEAD6@mail.newcastle.edu.au> Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3409 On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Edward Cherlin wrote: > At 1:16 PM -0700 10/25/97, Chris Bogart wrote: > >On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > [snip] > > >> But in terms of actually making the distinction at all, you don't need a > >> language to do that, you just make the distinction. What a language can do > >> is find a convenient way of expressing that distinction to others. > > > >For me at least, though, it could help me think about the matter more > >smoothly, and therefore more quickly or more often, at least within a > >certain category of thinking. > > > >This is all very theoretical -- I have no idea how I could ever prove this > >to myself for sure, much less anyone else. But I suppose that's an > >inherent problem when discussing something as immeasurable as "thought". > > A practical example is Conway's recent recasting of the theory of games in > terms of extended non-standard arithmetic. A number is defined as an > ordered pair of sets of numbers, where each member of the Left set is less > than each member of the Right set. A game is an ordered pair of sets of > games, without restriction. Both constructions begin with the number 0 = { > | } in which both Left and Right sets are empty. Then { 0 | } is a number > (1), { 0 | 1 } is a number (1/2), and { 0 | 0 } is a game (*). This game * > is infinitesimal, and neither greater than 0, less than 0, or equal to 0. > > Using this theory, Elwyn Berlekamp, a middle-level amateur, is able to > create Go positions in which he can routinely beat the top players in the > world with either color. He thinks in the new language (up, star, tiny, > miny...), they think in the traditional language of Go (sente, gote...) and > he wins, over and over. > > The concepts cannot be explained in the old terminology, and the > distinctions cannot be made without the new terminology. You can think of > making one distinction at a time without new language, but not the hundreds > required to use the new theory of Go endgames. See "Mathematical Go > Endgames: Nightmares for Professional Go Players" by Berlekamp and Wolfe, > for details. ISBN 0-923891-36-6. There is also a hardcover edition under > the title, "Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point". > > Other practical cases of great interest are recounted by Oliver Sachs in > "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." The most interesting for this > discussion is the artist with achromatopsia. Due to neurological damage, he > lost not only the ability to see colors, but all memory of what colors > looked like. He could still describe colors by name and by Pantone matching > number. It turned out, however, that his knowledge of color went no further > than names and numbers. All the rest of his understanding of color was > lost. > > The point is that language by itself does not provide the means for > thought. Language and other mental abilities have to work together so that > the language refers to something--a memory, a mental model, or whatever, > which we hope is connected to reality--and the user can work in the > language or the concepts or both, whichever is more appropriate at the > moment. This seems a well-balanced view. So there is thought which is more language-oriented and thought that is more concept-oriented, and you switch from one to the other as need be. Fair enough. Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Mon Oct 27 21:47:58 1997 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:47:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280247.VAA08933@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 288 On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > Looking at your above sentence, and before reading your English > translation, I would simply have said, "Far to the left of me, a dark > brown cat of mine is about to catch the mouse." Sorry. I meant, "about to HUNT the mouse." Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Mon Oct 27 22:07:50 1997 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:07:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280307.WAA09741@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}" Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}" Subject: Re: machine translation X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: HACKER G N's message of Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:12:05 +1100 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1163 >>>>> "HACKER" == HACKER G N writes: HACKER> Well, you wouldn't call C++ a spoken language, but I can HACKER> certainly "say" C++ code to other people who know C++, and HACKER> have them understand me. I do sometimes communicate with my colleagues in computer languages for fun. We may write or even speak in computer languages, like this: while (sleepy) { if (alarm_clock_rings) { switch_off(alarm_clock); } if (there_is_a_lecture) { skip(lecture); } if (the_lecture_is_a_test) { wake_up_at_once(); break; } go_on_sleeping(); } -- Lee Sau Dan 'u&u40(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) .----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk | `----------------------------------------------------------------------------' From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 02:53:17 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:53:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280753.CAA16768@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Edward Cherlin Sender: Lojban list From: Edward Cherlin Subject: Re: Taoist and Buddhist texts (was Re: FANVA) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <971027152534_829658558@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 4571 At 1:27 PM -0700 10/27/97, Pycyn@aol.com wrote: [snip] >Buddhist logic is non-Aristotelian in the sense that it does not have the >developed syllogism and the complex discussion of the argumentative origins. > But it is not non-Aristotelian in the sense of not being bivalent. Indeed, >all the Indian logicians from the Nyaya school into the Buddhist forms of >Dignaga and Dharmakirti and Dharmottara and then back to the New Nyaya make >more or less explicit use of the two principles of bivalence, >non-contradiction (not both 'tis and 'tain't) and tertium no datur (either >'tis or 'tain't). > >The so-called Four-Cornered Negation of the Buddha applies >not to truth but to what the Arrived has NOT taught: all of 'tis, 'tain't, >both and neither. That is, he has taken NO STAND on the issues at hand, not a >logically tricky stand. Nagarjuna is true to this dominical rule by showing >only that all the other positions are ultimately incoherent and not then >going on to one claimed to work. In so doing, he shows that the both and the >neither positions are incoherent essentially because they violate bivalence. > > As not unusually, the Great Wisdom Gone Beyond went too far, in this case by >coming down to a definitely asserted not. You fail to observe that the 'na' is also self-referential, and does not represent a final position. By the way, that's Going Beyond, not Gone. "The journey is hindered by arrival." >(By the way and to Lojban -- as >against Loglan --'s credit, a large part of the Awakened's -- and certainly >Nagarjuna's -- point is probably that the apparent positions or questions are >ill-formed, since they refer to things in worlds where such things do not >occur (Siddy G in Blownout, for example). He described them as vain and useless, and as a distraction from what is edifying and valuable. Formedness did not come into it. It is equally incorrect to say that they do not occur, as well as to say that they do occur, or both, or neither. >And Lojban has a form for >rejecting such sentences with unfulfilled presuppositions without violating >bivalence or, indeed, getting bogged down in truth at all. Anybody got the >form handy? Aristotle, by the way, does use this move occasionally, but I >can't remember anywhere in the Organon). Indian Logic, in its developed >form, is also non-Aristotelian in having an intensional metatheory (works >with properties rather than classes), though the intensions can be treate a >la Montague as functions from worlds to classes ( but, since in Nyaya >properties are fundamental, it is better to treat classes as the images of >properties in worlds -- and more natural, too). > >Buddhism is generally not non-dualist, nor monist, or dualist. There's that 'na' again. For example: "What is the difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened man?" "The enlightened man sees no difference." So is that a difference? Or as we say in America, "There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two kinds and those who don't." >The >classification is based on an inapplicable supposition (that there are >substantial things -- at least one anyhow). Or, equally, that there aren't. >Later Madhyamika and Vijnanavada >and some of the Chinese off-shoots do get pretty close to Shankar Vedanta on >this, though -- to the point where Sh's opponents (including some Buddhists >of these schools) could not tell the difference. Yes, they were all raising clouds of dust on the ocean bottom. >One of the reasons that >Buddhism died out where Vedanta came in. Besides being done in by invaders (Huns and later Muslims). Buddhism had a similar problem later in China. It went into a decline there after neo-Confucianism stole enough of its good ideas. >But then, I am an Anglo-Catholic, which often means I do assert both 'tis and >'tain't in at least rapid succession, if not simultaneously (positions 3 and >4 of the Jain saptabhangi -- again not a non-bivalent position). >>|83 "Yet are there not three eternals, but one eternal." Our Abbess always thought the Athanasian Creed was one of the best parts of Catholicism. She taught us St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav, besides Dogen and Keizan and the rest. -- Edward Cherlin, President Help outlaw Spam by supporting Rep. Chris Smith's bill and opposing the other bills supported by the spammers From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 01:36:01 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:35:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280635.BAA15678@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Emil Sit Sender: Lojban list From: Emil Sit Subject: Re: machine translation X-To: "Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}" X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:05:05 +0800." <9710280209.AA21607@MIT.EDU> Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1201 > I do sometimes communicate with my colleagues in computer languages > for fun. We may write or even speak in computer languages, like this: > > while (sleepy) { > if (alarm_clock_rings) { > switch_off(alarm_clock); > } While certainly syntactic C, I'm not convinced that your example is any different from English. It feels like English to me certainly. For me to consider something "speaking in C", I'd like some variable declarations or procedure declarations, or even a loop... On a somewhat related note, people certainly use computer language idioms in everyday communication. One common example would be: #include in Usenet postings. Among many people I know, to say "food-p" or to write "(food-p)" is a query as to whether anyone is hungry. (i.e. we evaluate to #t if so.) As another side comment, if this list were moderated and I were moderating, I'd probably stop letting through messages on this thread at this point. :) -- Emil Sit / Bronx Science '95, MIT '99 -- ESG, SIPB, Athena Consulting PGP KeyID: 0xE63561E9 / Fingerprint: A68FD0693EDABA19 2671EC1F22498F58 From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 01:30:50 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:30:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280630.BAA15500@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: What's going on here? X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EIQ00GDTM6UK1@mail.newcastle.edu.au> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2346 On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Chris Bogart wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > > it is *objectively* important not to confuse one with the other, because if > > it is, the consequences seem more than merely linguistic. You can be > > fond of a person, but you cannot plausibly feel strong affectionate > > devotion for potato chips! This is a difference that I think is far deeper > > than "being" in a place and "being" an Australian. > > There was a headline on an editorial in La Nacion that asked (if I > remember right) "?Somos o estamos indeciso?". The distinction between the > two possibilities (whether the public was indecisive or merely undecided > on whatever issue it was) were obviously important enough for some editor > to devote space to it. OK, well what I think is going on there (and again, Jorge will know more about this than I do) is that "estamos" expresses a condition, and consequently can be used here to express a tendency. We have different ways of expressing this in English, but that is how La Nacion did it in Spanish, anyway. Whereas, "be" is so abstract that it's really only just a copula, and one manifestation of it is pretty much the same as another. However, this will get complicated if there are actually multiple definitions of "estar", like there are for "love" in the dictionary. The point is that I don't think that the "ser/estar" distinction contributes anything significant to the English language-web, because its functions are handled elsewhere - as your translation of the concepts of "somos/estamos" into "indecisive/merely undecided" shows. Conversely, "to do/to make" might not contribute anything significant to the Spanish web, because Spanish speakers make this distinction in other ways that are familiar to them as well. > As a completely pointless aside, there was a Simpson's episode where a > mysterious apparition appears to a crowd of Springfieldites saying "I > bring you... Love". The town doctor asks "You mean the love of a man for > a woman, or the love of a man for a good cigar?". I wonder how they > translated that into German. > Heh, heh. Translation problems often occur between cases where one language is more specific in a certain area where another language is less specific. That happens all the time. :) Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 01:36:24 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:36:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710280636.BAA15709@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: SWH again (was Re: What's going on here?) X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1825 > On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Edward Cherlin wrote: > > > A practical example is Conway's recent recasting of the theory of games in > > terms of extended non-standard arithmetic. A number is defined as an > > ordered pair of sets of numbers, where each member of the Left set is less > > than each member of the Right set. A game is an ordered pair of sets of > > games, without restriction. Both constructions begin with the number 0 = { > > | } in which both Left and Right sets are empty. Then { 0 | } is a number > > (1), { 0 | 1 } is a number (1/2), and { 0 | 0 } is a game (*). This game * > > is infinitesimal, and neither greater than 0, less than 0, or equal to 0. > > > > Using this theory, Elwyn Berlekamp, a middle-level amateur, is able to > > create Go positions in which he can routinely beat the top players in the > > world with either color. He thinks in the new language (up, star, tiny, > > miny...), they think in the traditional language of Go (sente, gote...) and > > he wins, over and over. > > > > The concepts cannot be explained in the old terminology, and the > > distinctions cannot be made without the new terminology. You can think of > > making one distinction at a time without new language, but not the hundreds > > required to use the new theory of Go endgames. See "Mathematical Go > > Endgames: Nightmares for Professional Go Players" by Berlekamp and Wolfe, > > for details. ISBN 0-923891-36-6. There is also a hardcover edition under > > the title, "Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point". > > As a further reflection on this, it will be interesting to see whether anyone can come up with an application of Lojban that results in improved thinking in a certain field or activity - let alone one that produces results as dramatic as this! :) Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 11:12:03 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:12:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710281612.LAA03953@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (message from HACKER G N on Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:28:54 +1100 (EST)) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1632 ... because the former implies that you don't have in mind a specific cat, which "lo" clearly dictates. ... I know we have discussed this too much in the past, so I won't get into this, except to note that you are expanding your universe of reference more than is warranted. I have a friend who has two cats and two tiny dogs. When one cat and one dog are in the room and she says {le mlatu} I have not the foggiest idea to which animal she is referring. But when she says {lo mlatu}, I know she is referring to the specific cat that is in the room. This is because of the pragmatic way she handles context. When she is saying `that which I designate' the designated entity is likely to be somewhat like a similar real entity, but not necessarily be the real entity. However, she hardly ever makes reference to objects outside the current context without warning me first. So, when she refers to {that which is really a cat}, I don't expect her to be referring to any real cat in the universe, but to the real cat in the context of the conversation. Of course, when she has expanded the context to include the whole universe, then `real cat' is unspecified. Under these circumstances, you are quite right. But these are not the circumstances. Many logicians always presume that the context is bigger than their interlocutor expects. I am not a logician, nor are most of the people with whom I have conversations. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725 From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 11:25:50 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:25:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710281625.LAA04442@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (message from HACKER G N on Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:28:54 +1100 (EST)) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2389 Where English is less definitive, Lojbanists say, "English is less definitive!" Where Lojban is less definitive, Lojbanists say, "English overspecifies!" It's all so polemical. You sound like Esperantists. :) I am not saying that. I am saying that Lojban enables me to consider some ideas that I don't readily find in English. > .i lo mi ke xekri bunre mlatu zu'a vu pu'o kalte le cmacu Looking at your above sentence, and before reading your English translation, I would simply have said, "Far to the left of me, a dark brown cat of mine is about to catch the mouse." That's not difficult to say and I could have sworn it conveyed all the *relevant* information. Not difficult to say, but that is not what I understand the Lojban to say, particularly not what I understand it to say before I filled in the context. My understanding of {pu'o} is that * it does not tell how far to the pastward of the event we referring; and * it does not tell when the event is taking place. (Chapter 10.10, _The Complete Lojban Language_) After reading my statement of context it is fair for you to think the time is "now": `I only have one black/brown cat, I am looking out my window on my left into the field'. This context suggests {ca pu'o}; but before I specified such a context, a listener should figure I may be referring to the past, present, or future; and the cat may be a kitten crouching before a ball of yarn. Indeed, one might wonder whether it is a Sapir-Whorfian effect of your English that caused you to presume that {pu'o} implies {ca pu'o}; or is it that regardless of language, we presume a context to be current and local unless told otherwise? (I can imagine strong practical arguments for the latter.) (Incidentally, insufficient specificity is why I left the designatee of {lo} unspecified until I set the context; after setting the context, the universe of discourse contained only one veridical {lo mi ke xekri bunre mlatu}. Needless to say, if by default we presume a context to be current and local, then I could have presumed you knew that our universe of discourse contained only one veridical cat.) -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725 From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 20:31:17 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:31:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290131.UAA24585@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 4014 > > .i lo mi ke xekri bunre mlatu zu'a vu pu'o kalte le cmacu > > Looking at your above sentence, and before reading your English > translation, I would simply have said, "Far to the left of me, a > dark brown cat of mine is about to [hunt] the mouse." That's not > difficult to say and I could have sworn it conveyed all the > *relevant* information. > > Not difficult to say, but that is not what I understand the Lojban to > say, particularly not what I understand it to say before I filled in > the context. > > My understanding of {pu'o} is that > > * it does not tell how far to the pastward of the event we > referring; and > > * it does not tell when the event is taking place. > > (Chapter 10.10, _The Complete Lojban Language_) > > After reading my statement of context it is fair for you to think the > time is "now": `I only have one black/brown cat, I am looking out my > window on my left into the field'. This context suggests {ca pu'o}; > but before I specified such a context, a listener should figure I > may be referring to the past, present, or future; I have hitherto not really seen any Lojbanist use an event contour without a tense cmavo unless the tense was either clearly established from context first or the tense was the present - and that's exactly what you did just now. :) Your tense, unspecified, DID turn out to be the present. Therefore, it still DOES seem to have been a reasonable assumption that the tense was present. And even if it wasn't, English still forces a choice about tense, but the present tense has always been used as a kind of "timeless" default when you're not too sure what the tense really is, or a reference to position in time would be meaningless. For example, summaries of books usually use the present tense to describe the plot of the book unfolding. > and the cat may be a > kitten crouching before a ball of yarn. Now this WOULD be genuinely confusing. Why on earth would you refer to a ball of yarn as a mouse without first warning your listener when the context was not clear? If, on the other hand, you were genuinely confused by whether you were looking at a mouse, you would have made a special point of it, again so as not to be confusing. Or, if you were confident that it was a mouse, but wanted to allow the possibility that it was something else, you could either make a special point of it or not as the case may be. But it is always understood that you could be honestly mistaken about one of your claims anyway. As far as whether the cat is a kitten, a kitten is a kind of cat - a baby cat - even though it's not normally idiomatic to talk about it like that. Nevertheless, where the context does not specify otherwise, it seems reasonable simply to call "lo mlatu" a cat. > > Indeed, one might wonder whether it is a Sapir-Whorfian effect of your > English that caused you to presume that {pu'o} implies {ca pu'o}; or > is it that regardless of language, we presume a context to be current > and local unless told otherwise? (I can imagine strong practical > arguments for the latter.) I can assure you, it has always been the latter. > > (Incidentally, insufficient specificity is why I left the designatee > of {lo} unspecified until I set the context; after setting the > context, the universe of discourse contained only one veridical {lo mi > ke xekri bunre mlatu}. Needless to say, if by default we presume a > context to be current and local, then I could have presumed you knew > that our universe of discourse contained only one veridical cat.) That's hardly how the default contexts work. Most Lojbanists do seem to interpet contexts for space and time as being fairly immediate unless told otherwise, and the context of "lo" to be as broad as possible to allow for REASONABLE non-specificity. I hardly think it makes sense to arbitrarily violate these conventions because of loopholes in the grammar. Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Oct 28 22:18:46 1997 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:18:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290318.WAA28720@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: Re: le da'i smuni be lo nalgerna X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 602 On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Chris Bogart wrote: > On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > > > I assumed he meant {tu'anai} :-) > > > > {tu'anai}? What's that mean? "The sumti associated with the following > > abstraction"? > > .i na gerna i go'i i mi punai jinvi ledu'u ja'a go'i vau u'i > .i le smuni be lo nalgerna no drata be la cevni cu slabu i go'i ji'a i ku'i mi pu sruma ledu'u le finti pu te smuni le ba'e vo'a se cusku pei ie i ja xu fy puca'o bebna xajmi > .i ri > mipri zo'o ko tavla mi la'edi'u > .i mu'i la'edi'u mi la'ezo zo'obu ciska pa'edai co'o mi'e djef From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 18:31:21 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:31:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710312331.SAA07859@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: lo velrimni klesi pamo'o X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1920 cu'u mi joi la markl >> i pe'i zo valsi zo vlile cu rimni fo le ka makau pamoi >> le ba'usle porsi pe ce'u >.i go'i .i ma smuni zo ce'u .i zo ce'u selcau lemi >ma'oste fukpi i zo ce'u cmavo la ko'as le ka sinxa le du'u makau ckaji da i mu'a ro mlatu cu ckaji le ka ce'u mabru i mu'a lo'e perli lo'e plise zmadu le ka mi nelci ce'u i e'u tcidu le papamoi pe la refgram >> i rimni fo le kamba'uslepavmoi >.i go'i fo le kamkemba'uslepavmoi i go'i i ku'i mi roroi jimpe le du'u zo kam cu vasru piro le se lidne i pe'i le drata smuni to zo kambor toi na mutce se pilno >.iku'i le'e valkrakemba'uslepoimi'u cu selkle ge le >kamkemba'uslepavmoi gi le kamkemba'uslekempavyjevrelmoi >gi le kamkemba'uslekempavyjevreljvecibmoi gi le ra'idrata i ienai i pe'i zo kamba'uslepavmoi cu banzu le nu tavla fi mu'a lei ci ba'usle noi pamoi le porsi iseju pe'i zo rodmi'u na mapti >.i xu mi'o stidi zo kamkemba'uslekemjavba'uslepoike'epavmoi i oi oi mi na go'i >.i go le'i kamkemba'uslepavmoi cu selkancu fi li za'upa >gi le porsi be le'i kamkemba'uslepavmoi cu vajni je sarcu >leka velrimni i mi na jimpe i ie le'i kamkemba'uslepavmoi cu selkancu fi li za'upa i ku'i ki'u ma la'e di'u cu nibli je se nibli le du'u le porsi cu sarcu le ka velrimni >> i lo'e ve rimni cu selkai gi'enai broda mintu >.i.uanai mi na jimpe fi lu broda mintu li'u i mu'a valkrakemba'uslepoi mintu i lo'e ve rimni cu selkai gi'enai lo porsi mintu >.i ma cu gismu poi lesu'u ke'a srana zo fanmo kei >panra lesu'u zo co'a srana zo co'u .i xu zo krasi go'i i pe'i go'i i ku'i le krasi be lo valsi na.enai le fanmo be lo valsi cu ba'usle i le valsi cu zasti pujeba le nu bacru >> i le krasi cu lerfu nagi'enai ba'usle >.i mi na jinvi la'edi'u i mi do na tugni i ku'i mi gleki le nu toltugni bau la lojban ui >.i.i'o tu'a ledo pemcrlimeriki cu xamgu zdile i ki'e co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 00:59:08 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290558.AAA03645@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 844 >That's hardly how the default contexts work. Most Lojbanists do seem to >interpet contexts for space and time as being fairly immediate unless told >otherwise, and the context of "lo" to be as broad as possible to allow for >REASONABLE non-specificity. I think Lojbanists do so because Lojbanists are English speakers and those are the English defaults. People seem to be trying deperately to map "lo" to English "a" and "le" to English "the", and assuming the default context is one that makes this possible. Probably when you are talking to an English native, this is a better assumption than one might hope would be tru of Lojban use in general when people are fluent. But it is not really what the language design says. Myself, I am prone to explicitly limiting the universe of discourse whenever I use "lo". lojbab From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 03:51:25 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:51:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290851.DAA16846@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: Ser/estar (was: Re: What's going on here?) X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EIS00552K2V7X@newcastle.edu.au> X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 3965 On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >Well, you tell me, Jorge. Did you learn or notice anything significant or > >deep and meaningful when you first learned that there was one kind of > >hacer represented by "to do" and another kind represented by "to make"? > > I don't remember. I certainly see a difference now, as I see a > difference between "ser" and "estar", and in many other distinctions > that one language makes explicitly and the other doesn't. I've always seen a difference between "ser" and "estar" as it was taught to me in high school. My point *isn't* whether the two senses are different as such. Lemme see, how can I explain this that will make it clear? Possibly in terms of the language of an *essential* distinction versus an *incidental* distinction. Suppose that you look up "hacer" in the dictionary. Does it have one definition, or many? If many, then does it have one that reasonably corresponds with English "to do", and one that reasonably corresponds with English "to make"? If so, then that seems an *essential* distinction between the two different forms of "hacer". Otherwise, it just seems incidental. "Moegen" and "lieben" nicely correspond with two real definitions of the word "love" in English, so this also seems to be an essential distinction to make. "Ser" and "estar", if they have two roughly corresponding definitions of the word "to be", would also be essential distinctions of "being". However, I think think of at least one way in which the definition of being seems exactly the same whether you use "ser" or "estar", and that's with "be" just being used as a copula. That's what I'm talking about with respect to "being" in a place and "being" an Australian. In both these cases, "being" is the same thing: a word that joins a subject to its predicate. It could join that subject to any old predicate. In that case, "ser" and "estar" would be incidental distinctions of the copula, because one type of being in each case can't really be confused for the other, becuase it's just a plain copula and a plain copula, six of one and half a dozen of the other. But that "ser" and "estar" are different in the first place in a way that is significant to the Spanish language-web seems undeniable. > >If some distinctions weren't deeper than others, there would seem no point > >in learning any other languages to try to expand the mind. > > I don't know. I enjoyed very much learning English and Esperanto, > which are the languages besides Spanish in which I can "think" > (meaning that I can formulate my thoughts directly in those > languages without going through a process of translation). I haven't > reached that point yet with Lojban, except for some short sentences > with some often used constructions. Learning other languages has > taught me a lot about my native language as well, things that I > wouldn't have noticed otherwise. I enjoy learning about other languages, and it teaches me a lot about my own language and others, but I would have thought that was separate from the kind of "mind expansion" Chris Bogart was originally talking about. The latter has to do with improving thinking more than knowledge. Still, maybe learning languages can do that in other ways. I don't know... I'm getting tired... By the way, exactly what IS the distinction being made with the headline, "Somos o estamos indeciso?" My Spanish is practically nonexistant, and that was the first time that I had ever seen "ser" and "estar" joining the same predicate. The distincion, according to Chris, was whether the public was indecisive, or merely undecided. Does that mean that "estar" picks out nonce states of being, whereas "ser" picks out relatively permanent states, or it is more context-dependent than that, or...? I'm just getting confused now. What are the different possible definitions of "ser" and "estar"? Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 03:59:54 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:59:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290859.DAA16948@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: Re: What's going on here? X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EIS0053UN8JUJ@newcastle.edu.au> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2209 On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >> There was a headline on an editorial in La Nacion that asked (if I > >> remember right) "?Somos o estamos indeciso?". The distinction between > the > >> two possibilities (whether the public was indecisive or merely undecided > >> on whatever issue it was) were obviously important enough for some editor > >> to devote space to it. > > > >OK, well what I think is going on there (and again, Jorge will know more > >about this than I do) is that "estamos" expresses a condition, and > >consequently can be used here to express a tendency. > > The tendency one is "somos". "Estamos indecisos" would be > "we are undecided", and "somos indecisos" would be "we are > undecisive". "Estar" is the temporary condition, "ser" is the > immanent one. > > I once read that the ser/estar distinction reflected the tendency > of Spaniards to let their spirit ponder on those transcendental > issues of existence, leaving for the industrious Anglosaxons the > more practical distinctions of doing and making. :) Right. Is that a general trait of ser/estar? If so, I really wish my Spanish teacher had taught me that. It would have saved a lot of confusion. And as far as states of being goes, there's a really significant difference metaphysically going on there. Cool. u'aro'e :) > > > The > >point is that I don't think that the "ser/estar" distinction contributes > >anything significant to the English language-web, because its functions > >are handled elsewhere - as your translation of the concepts > >of "somos/estamos" into "indecisive/merely undecided" shows. Conversely, > >"to do/to make" might not contribute anything significant to the Spanish > >web, because Spanish speakers make this distinction in other ways that are > >familiar to them as well. > > Of course, English makes do perfectly well with its single "to be", and > Spanish with its "hacer". And each of them can make both distinctions > in its own way. And so can Lojban and any other language, or it wouldn't > be a language. Exactly. :) No reason we all need the same divisions in our own webs. Variety is the spice of life. Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 04:06:11 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 04:06:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710290906.EAA17022@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710290456.XAA16444@access5.digex.net> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 460 On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Logical Language Group wrote: > Myself, I am prone to explicitly limiting the universe of discourse > whenever I use "lo". I agree that it can be really confusing without explicitly limiting the universe of discourse, yes. However, it would be nice to be able to use specific/veridical and non-specific/non-veridical utterances easier in casual references, so that universe references didn't have to be made so often. Geoff From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 13:14:04 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:13:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710291813.NAA28407@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Indirect questions X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1345 Jorge: > Chris: > > What's a non i.q. way of saying {ko'a na djuno ledu'u > >xukau mi badri} (She doesn't know whether or not I am sad). > > And solved this one one or two years ago, but I don't remember > now exactly how it went. I think we needed a selbri with the place > structure "x1 is the truth value of x2". I'm tempted to use {se jetlai} > for that: > > jetlai [jetnu klani] x1 (du'u) amounts to x2 (li) in truth. If {jei} meant "whether" then you could use {jei} for your example. And then for "I know what she ate" you could have: 1. ro da zo`u mi djuno le jei ko`a citka da If {jei} means "jetlai", then you can do "whether" thus: 2. ro da poi ke`a jei mi badri zo`u mi djuno le du`u da jei mi badri 3. ro da poi ke`a jetlai be le du`u mi badri zo`u mi djuno le du`u da jetlai le du`u mi badri Possibly this can be abbreviated if the second "mi badri" clause can be replaced by an anaphor. (1) Would then become: 4. ro da ro de poi ke`a jei ko`a citka da zo`u mi djuno le du`u de jei ko`a citka da It should be clear why I would prefer {jei} to be clarified as meaning "whether" rather than "is the truth value of". It can be defined straightforwardly in logical terms, it adds concision, and the competing meaning can straightforwardly be rendered by "jetlai". --And From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 14:35:35 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:35:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710291935.OAA00814@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Linguistics journals LONGISH X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 13235 Here is a combined reply to a number of messages in this thread, in chronologialish order. > From: Chris Bogart > Could Lojban be used, if not "studied" as such, by a linguist/logician as > a tool for discussing and illustrating some fine points of linguistic > logic? Not writing *in* lojban, just giving examples in Lojban. An > abstract discussion of how abstraction, quantification, and argument > raising (to pick three things out of the hat) would be less readable and > more prone to error than one that analyzed example sentences with {nu}, > {ci}, and {tu'a} in them. In other words, maybe Lojan could be useful in > the same way math notation or normal predicate calculus are useful. > Obviously its rigor is going to be less well-accepted by a logician's > audience at first, but if nothing else it provides something concrete to > shoot holes in. Lojban is no clearer than a blend of ordinary predicate logic notation plus English. And the latter is easier to read. So I'd say Lojban would be a poor choice. > As several people have pointed out, reading abstract > discussion of logic is *difficult*. I'm fascinated by Lakoff's "Women, > Fire, and Dangerous Things", but there are several chapters I just can't > get through. Which chapters? I don't remember ones about logic. Maybe I skipped them. > From: Chris Bogart > On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > > Don't you think linguists/logicians already HAVE such notational > > schemes in place, which are accepted generally within their own > > communities? Why would they want to learn a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE > > just so they can re-invent the wheel? :) > Well if they've already done all this, why are *we* reinventing the > wheel? We could just take their scheme, add vocabulary words and a > method of pronouncing the symbols. I thought what we were doing was > more ambitious than what was already available. I'd be interested > in hearing more about some of these notational schemes. This is part of what Lojlan did: make the notation speakable. It then did a load more non-logical stuff besides, to enhance usability and achieve various other auxiliary goals. > From: Robin Turner > Hmmm. I was under the impression that Chomsky, if he has not been > exactly displaced, is definitely being nudged to one side. The > cutting edge of linguistics is semantics rather than syntax these > days, and the upsurge of interest in categorisation theory and > metaphor has also provoked a resurgence of interest in Whorf Our view of the balance of sociopolitical power in contemporary lx is different, but I broadly agree with what you said. [snipped] > On the other hand, Lojban does provide some fairly enticing area for > linguistic research (which I may pursue when I get my MA out of the > way). Certainly the creation of a speech community from scratch > would offer some intriguing possibilities for sociolinguists, This is true, though Klingon would be a richer lode in that respect. > and a discourse analysis of Lojban would be another possibility. At the > moment this is hampered by the small amount of written Lojban (other > than translations) in circulation, and the lack of spoken exchanges, > but as a long-term project it would be very interesting to see to > what exten Lojbanists follow the discourse patterns of their native > discourse communities or create new discourse patterns specific to > Lojban. True again, though maybe Esperanto might be the richer lode this time. > Yet another research area would be language aquisition - is > Lojban easier to learn as a second language, and (when we eventually > have children learning Lojban) is it possible to aquire it as a > first language, or does it have features which make conscious > learning necessary? Someone has to risk fucking their progeny up first. > From: HACKER G N > > yES, though not in the mainsteam, but i DON'T think Lojban would > > present a sufficiently focused basis for experiment. > > In what ways? It seems to me that if Lojban really is intended to > test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, then this kind of feedback should > be important. I've never really understood how Lojban was supposed to test the SWH, or, indeed, how "SWH" is defined for the purposes of Lojlan. > > I myself can think of hardly any ways in which Lojban might > > legitimately be discussed in lx journals. > > Fairly shattering. In what ways is it not relevant? In every way.... [The question reminds me of the scene from Catch 22, where General Scheisskopf is interrogating someone or other. It goes something like: "I didn't do X [=what you are accusing me of]." "When didn't you do X?" "I always didn't do X."] > > Good psycholinguistic > > data on processing of things with and without terminators (i.e. > > natlangy and nonnatlangy structures) might be interesting. > > Is that because terminators are so unnatural? Terminators are one of > the most irritating features of the language, IMHO, and the easiest > to get wrong. In fact, it's interesting to note that a common cause > of initial syntax errors with computer programs is in forgetting to > close brackets in an expression, just as a common cause of syntax > errors in Lojban is in forgetting a non-elidable terminator. There's > a lesson to be learned there, I'm sure... I think so too. If there was some way of counting errors in Lojban text (where error = ways the text deviates from what the speaker would have written had they perfect command of the lg), then it would be of interest to the extralojbanic world to know what propertion of these involve terminator errors. But anyway, Yes: I think terminators are unnatural. But I also think they're a good idea. > > If someone came to me wanting to do a dissertation on Lojban, and > > didn't mind being taken for a loony or not increasing their > > emplyability, then I'd encourage them to do one, but only if it > > was essentially a work falling within the domain of Cultural > > Studies: that is, Lojban as a creation, rather than as a language. > > And what form would that take in the domain of Cultural Studies? > 'Gee, look what some loonies have actually bothered to think up...,' > etc.? Pretty much, but clearly the scholar is obliged to make a case for the object of study being deserving of the attention paid to it. I would have thought it deserving for its intrinsic interest, though not for its impact on wider society. (One of my colleagues has just published a book, "Senseless acts of beauty", on people who live in trees and tunnels in places where roads are going to be built: this culture is interesting too, but a study of it is the more marketable for this culture being in the (rather approving) public eye.) > > Same goes for all other invented lgs. > > Invented languages are not worthy of study in linguistics? Is this > because they don't pass a test of useability that is found in > speaker viability? For if so, then Esperanto might merit some study. > (Not that I'd want to undertake it, but anyway...) Ivan addressed this: we don't know how English works, so we study English to find out. But we do know how Lojban works, so we don't need to study it. > From: HACKER G N > I know that linguists use all > kinds of tree structures, diagrams and various forms of symbolic > notation to represent the various mechanics of natural language. And > in logic, of course, they have been employing symbolic notation for > various kinds of predicate and argument manipulation forever. I > think that Lojban is very much the student of these disciplines > rather than the master. True. However, in principle, Lojban might have something to offer. If Lojban was committed to (a) being able to translate into predicate logic, and (b) attempting to express everything natlangs do, then the Lojban community would have built up a body of at least approximate ways of translating various natlang constructions and meanings into predicate logic. Since only some areas of this translation have been worked on at all intensively, the Lojban project, if not so much the final Lojban product, might have made a useful contribution. However, I do feel that the Lojban project has not worked in this way in practise. > From: Logical Language Group To: > >Well: If I was asked to review a grant application for > >research of this type, and if I wasn't the Lojban-supporter > >I am, then I would want to see a well-made prima facie case > >for expecting the research to be fruitful. E.g. what advantage does > >Lojban have in this respect over ordinary predicate logic > >notation. But someone could probably make such a case. > > Well, I think the prima facie case for this is fairly simple. > People do not fluently speak or use predicate logic notation, and it > seems unlikely that anyone ever will. I speak (or at least write) predicate logic notation better than I speak/write Lojban. It stands to reason: pred log is a subset of Lojban. Lojban is a complexified version of predlog. > On the other hand, any > machine AI will require a lot of real world knowledge base inputs in > order to be able to function. A fluent Lojban speaker/writer CAN > exist, I will accept that there are people who can write Lojban fluently. But in some cases the logical element of what is written is flawed. For those writers less prone to logical errors, I bet they would have equal facility with predlog. > and at least a large subset of the language can be easily > processed into predicate logic compatible form (The research work > and language skill of Nick Nicholas is eviodence of both of these). > This would lead one to believe that a much better human/ computer > interface for inputting the knowledge base data would result by > having Lojban speakers (who need not be expert in computer AI nor > necessarily is predicate logic, but rather might be expert in an > application field) input the knowledge base directly in Lojban. Actual Lojban text is living proof that using a language that is capable of logical clarity does not at all guarantee that the writer writes what they mean. Lojban is a tool, but it still needs the skill from the user: it doesn't provide clarity all on its own. > From: Logical Language Group > I have discussed with one linguist (Alexis Manaster-Ramer) about > using Lojban as a tool for communicating semantic nuance in a way > that English translation cannot in reporting examples from other > languages. I know you had this exchange, but it seems a pretty extraordinary suggestion. I can't see how Lojban has any particular advantage over other possible metalanguages. If the lexical semantics of Lojban was more articulated then maybe, but not as it stands. > I also found that Lojban event contours made it easy to understand > the Russian perfective system, which is purportedly one of the more > difficult features for English speakers to understand. This > suggests that Lojban may be useful in conveying the significance of > grammatical strutures in one language in terms understandable in > English or some other native language. For example, perhaps someone > could show ergativity in Lojban more clearly than in English. OK, but diagrams would probably be easier. > From: HACKER G N > Enough of what DOES interest me about Lojban; now onto what does NOT > interest me. > > I do not think that there is anything that Lojban, or ANY language, > natural or constructed, can do to improve my thinking. I do not > think in Lojban, or English, or any other language; I just THINK. > You usually have to CONSTRUCT a language in which to express your > ALREADY EXISTING thoughts, and I consider that thought and language > are separate things. I don't fully agree here. I'll explain why. First, let us recognize two ways of using Lojban. CRITERIA OF SUCCESSFUL USAGE: I. The speaker successfully communicates with the addressee. II. The utterance actually encodes the meaning the speaker intended it to. (I) has been advocated by Lojbab, and to me seems a bit pointless, but to other people is highly appealing. (II), though, forces you think through the logical structure of what you want to say. I have found that the more I think about logic and related matters, the more my verbal reasoning is affected. This is not always a good thing, because I have found that in discussion with others I tend to focus on what they actually say rather than on what they mean. Successful communication generally needs more sympathy and less clarity. Still, the point is that I do believe that practice in reading and writing Lojban, if done in mode (II), will, for better or worse, make verbal thinking clearer. --And From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 29 14:51:09 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:50:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710291950.OAA01373@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: lo velrimni klesi pamo'o X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1325 coi doi lobypli ni'o mi djica lenu mi'o casnu le klesi be lo velrimni be fi la lojban. pamo'o no'i zo ba'usle basti zo selba'usle .i zo zunsna basti zo zunkemba'usle .i zo karsna basti zo karkemba'usle no'i le'e ba'uslepoimi'u goi ko'a cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo blanu rimni zo lanci fi ko'a .i zo terdi rimni zo tersa'ecpu fi ko'a .i zo dekpu rimni zo bukpu fi ko'a no'i le'e valkrazunsnami'u goi ko'e cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo valsi rimni zo vlile fi ko'e no'i le'e zunsnapoimi'u goi ko'i cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo kerlo rimni zo krili fi ko'i .i zo velmirsna rimni lu vo le morsi nanmu li'u fi ko'i no'i le'e ba'uslepoi panra goi ko'o cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo gugde rimni zo kukte fi ko'o .i leka zunsna vokselpli cu terpanra zo gugde zo kukte no'i le'e rafyjevma'o ba'uslepoimi'u goi ko'u cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo ri'u rimni zo selri'u fi ko'o .i zo pa'ezma rimni lu pa'enai li'u fi ko'u no'i le'e terbasna velrimni goi fo'a cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo penbi rimni zo pendo fi fo'a no'i le'e nalterbasna velrimni goi fo'e cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni .i zo kanro rimni zo misro fi ko'u .i lu ju'onai li'u rimni zo ju'agri fi fo'e no'i .o'acu'i .e'o ko dragau lemi selsre co'omi'e markl. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sun Nov 2 12:22:17 1997 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:22:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711021722.MAA17666@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 568 i le nunsnu be la djef joi la bob cu krefu da pe mi joi la bob zi'e pe puza loi nanca i pe'i le cuntu na ba se danfu bau le glico i ca le nu la bob ba'o co'a pilno le bangu le nu ciksi le by se darlu ba seljmi fa le du'u xukau by drani le ka jinvi i ji'u le mi selfri zo le zo lo mutce zmadu le ka ce'u xokauroi se pilno le nu sinxa lo'e te jimpe be fi le tavla kujoi le se tavla i le du'u xukau lo ve skicu cu jetnu cu so'eroi nalvai i ku'i mi denpa le nu la bob cu ciksi bau la lojban i mi ba jundi le se cusku enai la'e le se cusku co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sun Nov 2 20:57:32 1997 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:57:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711030157.UAA02408@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 175 [li'o] >i cumki fa lenu mi bazimo'u cmima >le lojbo liste vau ji'a > >co'o mi'e djef i a'o na fasnu i mi'a nitcu lei racli pensi noi do ke'a cmima co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 00:29:07 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:28:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710310528.AAA01254@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Linguistics journals LONGISH X-To: lee@piclab.com X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1718 >One fluent parent should be enough, but yes, some children's books would >be a very good project. Anybody want to tackle Dr. Seuss? :) It might be >interesting to see if we could negotiate some limited rights to some of >the more popular children's works for the purpose of translation. Dr Seuss is precisely the kind of book that we can run into trouble translating becuase it is copyrighted, and (I understand that) the author's estate is pretty aggressively marketing it. >There's >certainly no market for the translations to justify a normal translator's >contract, but certainly a few out-of-copyright works wouldn't be hard. Grimm's and Andersen's fairy tales work well, but if you have ever seen the texts, they are not "children's literature" in the same sense as is Dr. Seuss. Indeed, "See Spot run" is probably a loargely American English folly. Most other languages with more phonemic writing systems have very few ultra-simple texts of the Seuss variety, but rather advance to the next tier of difficulty rather early in the learning-to-read process. Thus I have Russian ckazki (fairy tales) that are primarily read TO young pre-readers. But the first grade in Russian advances the kids from reading primers to around what I would call 3rd to 4th grade English texts. And they start stidying children's LITERATURE (the Russian equivalent of Grimm and Andersen) in 2nd grade. The priumary sign of kids stories in other languages seems not to be simplicity of language, but rather brevity, and perhaps the use of anthro- pomorphic animals as characters. The language is often quite difficult. (See the Lojban tranbslations of Aesop's fables for an example). lojbab From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 04:46:00 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 04:45:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710310945.EAA12783@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Thorild Selen Sender: Lojban list From: Thorild Selen Subject: Re: Linguistics journals LONGISH X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2474 Logical Language Group writes: > Dr Seuss is precisely the kind of book that we can run into trouble > translating becuase it is copyrighted, and (I understand that) the author's > estate is pretty aggressively marketing it. Maybe it's just me, but I've never ever heard of Dr Seuss other than in discussions with (US) Americans. Is it the case that Dr Seuss is virtually unheard of outside the USA? That sounds reasonable to me, and it makes me wonder; do the writings of Dr Seuss really have any literary value? If not, why bother about translating them? Funny/witty rhyming is not considered as contributing to literary value for this purpose, as such properties of a text are hardly translatable. > Grimm's and Andersen's fairy tales work well, but if you have ever seen the > texts, they are not "children's literature" in the same sense as is > Dr. Seuss. Indeed, "See Spot run" is probably a loargely American English > folly. Most other languages with more phonemic writing systems have > very few ultra-simple texts of the Seuss variety, but rather advance to > the next tier of difficulty rather early in the learning-to-read process. There ought to be stories at varying degrees of difficulty available, so that you/we, for any person willing to increase his/her/its skill in Lojban, can provide a text that is reasonably interesting to read, and suitable for his/her/its skill level. This goes for children as well as for other persons. I'm willing to try some translation, as soon as I've got my Lojban book and read it through. I would start with something really simple, though :) > The priumary sign of kids stories in other languages seems not to be > simplicity of language, but rather brevity, and perhaps the use of anthro- > pomorphic animals as characters. The language is often quite difficult. I agree -- with the simplicity of Lojban, you should rather quickly be able to advance to more complicated texts. For the benefit of the reader, the stories should still be fun, though (especially if the intended reader is a child). > (See the Lojban tranbslations of Aesop's fables for an example). These are not quite beginner-level texts :) -- o .. w-, ( .| * o ~ !\_~ ~ ~__*, | (=) ___o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ?? /I\ ' _/_{ . . |> L__ !__} '/XX\ . _| X _// L\_ ,' thorild@update.uu.se / \ \_/\_,\. | I|. [__] `*\__/, (#/ (=)http://www.update.uu.se/~thorild/) From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 09:01:29 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:01:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710311401.JAA17719@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Lojban's conciseness X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2427 Edward Cherlin wrote: > At 10:26 PM -0700 10/26/97, Irene Gates wrote: > >la .iVAN. cusku di'e > >> I think the regularity is a real one: > >> my appreciation of APL and of Lojban share the same source -- > >> a liking for the unusual plus a fondness [for] conciseness. > > > >.a'a .a'u .ie [...] I did give it some thought [...] and came to > >the same conclusion that Ivan did, although pe'i su'a Lojban is only > >really concise when it comes to the attitudinals and things. > > Actually, Lojban is very concise for complex tenses [...] That's a good point. I've often tied myself in knots trying to explain the meaning of some Slavic derived verb or inflected verb form in English, and that experience has made ZAhO one of my favourite selma'o. (Whether ZAhO as defined are really adequate for the purpose is a matter I haven't yet looked at, however. Some day when I have leisure ...) What I had in mind when I mentioned conciseness, though, was the area of tanru and abstractions -- especially the way you can use predicates with some of their arguments already set for either purpose. I suppose my translation of `The Tale of the Staircase' (published in _JL_ some time ago) reflects my liking of the {broda be ... bei ... be'o brode} type of tanru quite well. > It does suffer considerably from the efforts of developers who didn't > understand what they were building, but that's normal in any new area > of math, software, and conlangs. That's normal in a conlang which strives to incorporate theoretical linguistics into its design, because our knowledge keeps growing and our ideas evolve all the time, so that no one can claim to understand fully what he is doing. You can make your conlang better (in a sense, of course) than the rest by being the first to take into account some recent development in the field, but you can never know when it will be superseded by something slightly or vastly different. -- `Meum est propositum in taberna mori; Vinum sit appositum sitienti ori: Ut dicant cum venerint angelorum chori "Deus sit propitius isti potatori".' (Archpoet of Cologne, `The Confession of Golias') Ivan A Derzhanski H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 10:27:50 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:27:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710311527.KAA21673@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: terminators X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 543 Pulling together two strands - I suspect the acid test of whether children will be able to acquire Lojban as an L1 will be their ability to handle the terminators, which do indeed seem to be the most awkward part of both Lojban and computer languages. Does anyone know of any natlangs which employ terminators (not counting punctuation)? The closest I've found is Chinese, which employs a few terminator-like structures, e.g. "yinwei ... suoyi" for causation (normally rendered into English as "because ... therefore ..."). Robin From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 15:08:38 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:08:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710312008.PAA01421@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: lo velrimni klesi pamo'o X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS "Re: lo velrimni klesi pamo'o" (Oct 28, 1:10am) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1931 la xorxes. spuda mi di'e > la markl di'e cusku > > > no'i le'e valkrazunsnami'u goi ko'e > > cu klesi lo la lojban. velrimni > > .i zo valsi rimni zo vlile fi ko'e > > i pe'i zo valsi zo vlile cu rimni fo le ka makau pamoi > le ba'usle porsi pe ce'u mi spuda la xorxes. di'e .i go'i .i ma smuni zo ce'u .i zo ce'u selcau lemi ma'oste fukpi > i rimni fo le kamba'uslepavmoi .i go'i fo le kamkemba'uslepavmoi .iku'i le'e valkrakemba'uslepoimi'u cu selkle ge le kamkemba'uslepavmoi gi le kamkemba'uslekempavyjevrelmoi gi le kamkemba'uslekempavyjevreljvecibmoi gi le ra'idrata .i xu mi'o stidi zo kamkemba'uslekemjavba'uslepoike'epavmoi .i go le'i kamkemba'uslepavmoi cu selkancu fi li za'upa gi le porsi be le'i kamkemba'uslepavmoi cu vajni je sarcu leka velrimni > i lo'e ve rimni cu selkai gi'enai broda mintu .i.uanai mi na jimpe fi lu broda mintu li'u > i ji'a le krasi be so'a lojbo valsi cu mixre > lo'i drata bangu valsi .i mi na pilno le rafsi be zo krasi tu'a le smuni be zo gimterzbavla .i mi pilno le rafsi be zo krasi tu'a le smuni be zo tolfa'o .i xu lenu mi pilno le rafsi be zo krasi cu mi selsre .i xu le gismu cu selsmu zo tolfa'o .i ma cu gismu poi lesu'u ke'a srana zo fanmo kei panra lesu'u zo co'a srana zo co'u .i xu zo krasi go'i > i le krasi cu lerfu nagi'enai ba'usle .i mi na jinvi la'edi'u > i pe'i zo kerlo zo krili cu rimni le kamzunsnapoi > to le ka makau zunsnapoi pe ce'u toi .i go'i .i pe'i do basgau zo kamzunsnapoi zo zunsnapoimi'u .i go'i ki'u ma .iku'i zo ce'u selsmu ma .i lemi ma'oste fukpi cu claxu zo ce'u > lo klama be fi le jbogu'e > cu sisku lo selcri sedlu'e > i catlu ro judri > i ku'i du'udri > le nu za'o lupcau kutmu'e .i.i'o tu'a ledo pemcrlimeriki cu xamgu zdile co'omi'e markl. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 19:37:47 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:37:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711010037.TAA09317@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: re rimni pemci X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710301732.KAA06025@indra.com> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1335 On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Mark Vines wrote: > .i le su'u le ba'usle cu srana le selba'u slaka kei > panra le su'u le lerfu cu srana le selci'a slaka .ua jimpe .i pe'i logji > > sislunra co xislu le tartsani > > .i vuslunra co sluni le bolblabi > > .i bislunra co xaslunsa lekro'i > > .i jislunra co guslumci mi'o > > .i.i'o zo co .e zo le pe ledo pemci cu terge'a selvla selsevsmi .uanai lu<< terge'a selvla selsevsmi >>li'u ki'a .i zoi gy.<< Grammatical-text word-meaning Dreamsigns >>gy. .ianaipei? > > le lazni cu lacri le linsi be > > le lamji lidne lerfu le nu larci > > .i.i'unai mi na jimpe lo'u lerfu le nu larci le'u .i mintu di'e: .i lacri fa le lazni fe le linsi be le lamji lidne lerfu fi lenu larci .i lu<< le nu larci >>li'u cu terbri zo lacri .enai zo lerfu .i le remoi terbri be zo lacri be'o pe lu<< le linsi be le lamji lidne lerfu >>li'u cu na nitcu zo ku > .i le'e zunsnapoimi'u fi le kulnrkimri cu selvla > fe zoi cynghanedd > > ta'opau le valsi co valgirmu'o be zo zoi mo > > [What is the terminator for a quotation with "zoi"?] After zoi there's both an initiator AND a terminator, and they can be any lojban word. For a Welsh word, you might use "kulrnkimri" or better yet just "ky.": ... selvla fe zoi ky. cynghanedd ky. co'o mi'e kris From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 20:05:49 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:05:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711010105.UAA10015@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Kids learning Lojban X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710302146.OAA06005@indra.com> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1315 > > >Someone has to risk fucking their progeny up first. I'm curious if anyone here thinks this is a serious risk. Certainly one's progeny would be pretty malselgle if they were deliberately kept isolated from any exposure to natlangs -- they'd have to be raised in a basement and sleep on a mattress with the tag torn off (it has English on it!). But seriously, it has happened that kids have grown up with only exposure to unnatural languages; like Signed English or pidgins; and as I understand it they naturally flesh it out into something usable. Do kids ever learn *2* languages at home at the same time? Friends of my dad tried raising their boy speaking 3 languages at once: the two parents were from different parts of India and lived in the US, and each would talk to the kid in both their own language and English. They panicked when the kid started mixing the three freely, and switched to all-English. Wouldn't he have straightened it out eventually? Can't "code-switchers" switch off the switching when speaking to a monoglot? If that's been shown to happen, it seems like this would calm the fears of parents trying this with Lojban. English would be "enough" for their mental development, and Lojban could only add to it, if it had any effect at all. co'o mi'e kris From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 31 20:05:24 1997 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:05:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711010105.UAA09996@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710301639.JAA29525@indra.com> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2111 On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM wrote: > My thesis is that {lo} provides more information to a listener than > {le}; and that sometimes one is misled by the common English glosses > of `the' for {le} and `a' for {lo}. You and your lojban-speaking friend are sitting on a bus when two women get on, one with an oversized bright green purse, and one with an oversized bright red purse. They're the only other people on the bus, and the purses really stand out as absurdities. You happen to be sitting close enough to see that the one with the red purse put a slug in the till, and you want to point this out to your friend. You can't say "lo xunre cu tcica lo brakarce", because 1) it wasn't the purse that cheated, and 2) it wasn't the bus so much as the bus company that was cheated. So you have a choice of "le xunre cu tcica le brakarce", or "lo ninmu poi bevri lo xunre cu tcica lo kagni poi ponse lo brakarce". I think the former is more likely and better. So here's an example where "le" gives more information than "lo". "lo ninmu" refers to more things, in context, than "le xunre"; "le ninmu" is specific but doesn't communicate enough information, and "lo xunre" is just plain wrong. So when you say "lo" provides more information than "le", you're neglecting context -- and your cat/dog example confuses matters by describing an unimagineable context. If people were so unpredictable as to refer to dogs as cats, then "lo" would always provide more information than "le". But in context, "le" probably is more informative most of the time than "lo" could be, because people's intentions are often fairly predictable. "lo" would be more informative if, say, there were a cat and a statue of a cat in the same room -- either one might be "le mlatu", but only the real cat is "lo mlatu". The possibilities are not really infinite unless the people trying to communicate are from infinitely different cultures. But I do agree with your overall point about what le and lo mean and why they shouldn't be simply translated as "the" and "a".