From cowan@ccil.org Wed Mar 07 21:28:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 05:28:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 4703 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 05:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 05:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 06:29:33 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14at1r-0001QH-00; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:31:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [humanmarkup] Introducing the Logical Language Group In-Reply-To: <003b01c0a78a$2d49a360$6cda0241@jrsycty1.nj.home.com> from Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga at "Mar 7, 2001 11:42:25 pm" To: humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:31:59 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5738 Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga scripsit: > John Cowan: Good to have you join HumanMarkup--if what Len says is true, I > welcome your relentless attitude to our group :). I'm a rather dogged fellow, except when I burn out completely. Hopefully that won't happen for a while. > Yes, it is a lot to digest (give it to us piecemeal John), Oh yes. > The parallels between the efforts are obvious...of course, HumanML is > focused specifically on developing XML standards, and focused exclusively on > meta 'human' characteristics of communications (not so much the language > itself). My proposal is that HumanML and Lojban share a model, at least in the four areas I mentioned; similarly, the "logical" parts of Lojban share a model with RDF (subject-verb-object statements, although Lojban is a lot richer than RDF of course). Naturally I am not proposing that HumanML be done directly in Lojban! > It would be very > interesting to hear personal testimony of using Lojban in daily life, to > determine what type of benefits are achieved through this more *explicit* > language. There are very few people who can actually use Lojban in daily life, as its aficionados are scattered across the world. It is a current limitation that you have to know English to learn Lojban, as well, though we do have a hard-copy version of the grammar book for people who aren't on the Net. > Additionally, I would like to know if Lojban is organic (are > there new terms added periodically?). New terms have not been added to the emotion vocabulary, although there is a "private use" space which can be used to add them as needed. The basic (predicate) vocabulary is open in several ways: it can form new terms by compounding simpler ones, or by borrowing from other languages. The emotion vocabulary only finally stabilized in 1989, as part of a push to make the language definite enough to be learnable once and for all, not subject to further tinkering: a point of great psychological importance to prospective language learners. > Each paradigm in psychology and spirituality has a different way of > describing human characteristics--the {E x C x S} model sounds very > efficient. Yet, how does it account for other theories or paradigms for > different beliefs or models of human emotion and intent? Or is that > something that exists as part of the context of the communication itself > (i.e. no special system). The latter, I think. We thought it necessary to establish one basic system, knowing that it would not serve all needs, so that fundamental communication would be possible. The system is as flexible as we could make it while still retaining a definite form. > [W]e very much welcome the input from yourself, and Lojban, in cultivating > universal standards for human expression based on XML. Thank you, and I will definitely be participating. I note that there is already some cross-membership between the lists. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter