From sentto-44114-2011-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Fri Feb 18 21:11:07 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 5710 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:11:00 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:11:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 14585 invoked by uid 40001); 18 Feb 2000 21:13:58 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 14582 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:13:57 -0000 Received: from hi.egroups.com (208.48.218.11) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:13:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2011-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Feb 2000 21:13:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 22910 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:13:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.37 with QMQP; 18 Feb 2000 21:13:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fb04.eng00.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.170) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:13:53 -0000 Received: from [207.69.115.26] (user-37kas0u.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.112.30]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06090; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:13:30 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: rmcivor@m3.sprynet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <38AD6E82.ABFC77B@peakpeak.com> <38AD6E82.ABFC77B@peakpeak.com> To: Steven Belknap , "Rex F. May" Cc: loglanists@ucsd.edu, logli@ucsd.edu, lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:41:27 -0500 From: "Robert A. McIvor" Subject: Re: [lojban] Dr. James Cooke Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Robert A. McIvor" At 11:53 AM -0600 2/18/00, Steven Belknap wrote: >From: Steven Belknap >textbook. It is important to understand that Loglan was *never* >baselined. > It was never intended that Loglan be baselined. Living languages change and grow constantly. >In my judgement, there is simply not the manpower nor the will to do >what is necessary to independently get Loglan to baseline. At this >point, it is still a language "under construction", which tends to >discourage anyone from learning the language, as it will very likely >change should a baseline be attempted. In actual fact, changes to the grammar in recent years are very few and far between. > There are a few >inconsistencies and some areas of incompleteness in the Loglan >grammer. I am unaware of inconsistencies in the grammar. Whether or not it is complete is a matter of definition. I imagine there are structures in other languages that have no counterpart in either Loglan or Lojban. e.g. the Turkish 'gossip' tense that has been recently discussed. >There is no complete dictionary of predicates. There has been for years a computerized dictionary not only of predicates but of most currently used words. I cannot say 'all' as writers can add to the list at any time, and new versions of the dictionary come out only occasionally. I believe Loglan is ahead of Lojban in this regard. >>There are >inconsistencies in the place structures of Loglan words, even within >the last published documentation of the language. I agree with this criticism, but we try to correct these as effort is available. >> I don't think there exists a full grammer. At least I haven't seen one. There is a published grammar which is conflict free in YACC, and which parses all currently well-formed Loglan sentences. I believe it is published on the Loglan web site. Rarely (maybe as much as once a year) someone produces a sentence that parses or fails to parse as 'da' intended, and that da feels should. Such a change is discussed by the 'Academy', and, if approved, the grammar is altered. No major changes have occurred for years, though there have been some additions. I suppose >one could simply make a new Loglan which is identical to lojban in >grammer, but has the Loglan words instead. That would be nearly >painless for Loglanders and would be fairly straightforward. > Since Loglan is not baselined, I am sure we would accept changes to the grammar that we could be convinced were desirable for whatever reason. >It is certainly important that the two communities treat each other >with mutual respect during the fusion of the two languages. I like >the formalism. If this is done, both communities will >have a viable means of communicating unambiguously in the same forum. Agreed. >Given the greater size and vigor of the lojban communit, I would >predict that the Loglan lexicon will eventually become an alternate >historical lexicon, sort of like ancient Greek is to modern Greek. > Time will tell. Sincerely, Robert A. McIvor (rmcivor@mac.com) --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Want to help promote education? Help kids learn to read? AND earn extra income? Join our affiliate program for the successful Hooked on Phonics product and you will do all three. Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com