From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Mar 01 22:30:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 2 Mar 2001 06:30:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 69340 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2001 06:30:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2001 06:30:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2001 07:31:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f226Uc424623 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:30:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:30:37 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Sophisticated Lojban (was: Meaningless talk) In-Reply-To: <78.1135cd7e.27d06517@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5666 On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/1/2001 6:11:46 PM Central Standard Time, > jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > > > > >.i su'a nandu fa le za'i traji ke smuni kakne sepi'o la lojban > > > > i ie li'a i ma'a za'o na certu le bangu > > > Not that I can take my own advice, but, after slogging through this thread > today, even with considerable mechanical help (the MSDOS jbofihe just can't > take it but the accompanying glosser is very handy), I would recommend that > we all (or most of us anyhow) go back to "See Spot run" and work our way up > very slowly before > we get around to doing to philosophical or linguistic discussions in Lojban. I agree with Jorge. I think we've had decades of See Spot Run, and thus set enough groundwork to be able to stumble forth, making mistakes and faltering but ultimately exploring what Lojban can really do. Let's get this baby out of the driveway and take it for a joyride! > There was scarcely a line in all this free from grammatical or intentional or > vocabulary errors, which makes it very hard to read -- especially if you miss > one of the intentional errors and so get off on the wrong notion of what was > meant or guess the wrong correction for a word. Lojban has almost zip > redundancy, so each little error adds incrementally to a total mess. I've seen a mistake or two from Jorge, but I was able to correct for them almost immediately, and they caused me no difficulty after reading the sentence a second time. Jorge and I are largely understanding each other. This is why reading by sight is really better than jbofi'e. There will "always" be a level of human thinking, of creative interpretation and analogy, which software just can't do. Language that is dry enough to lack any of this probably can't express very much. It could only make assertions about a tiny subset of reality, like the notation that describes chess moves. As an aside, it seems that some people think Lojban's unambiguity means it should be a dry, humorless, soul-less high-level markup language. But my own experiences with Lojban show me this was not the intention of an influential enough faction of the language designers. I prefer to use the logical clarity to improve my ability to launch polemical expeditions, not to restrict my expression down to the assertion of tautological mathematical formulae. If this statement runs contrary to previous statements of mine, it is because I am in fact exploring the powers of language. I find it is rather like a car; taking me far but imprisoning me during the journey. > >From my point of view -- but that is about my vocabulary and my own writing > style -- a good move would be to drop all the attitudinals and discursives > for a while. They do clutter the message and they seem to get misused more > often that content words (and are also the tightest piece of the vocabulary, > small error make huge differences). They are semantic ciphers, so nothing > will be lost (and some folk may be forced to actually use the brivla that > they mean when they use them). Oh, throw in the non-spatiotemporal tenses > and most of the connectives while you're about it. I think we're finding these other words provide context for us, resulting in improved interpretation. I would find a reduced subset more difficult to understand. Rather than us simplifying our dialogue, I earnestly invite all of you to join in, in Lojban! Don't be afraid or ashamed to stumble or ask simple questions. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!