From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Mar 18 10:33:40 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCMHs-0003Y1-Sx for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:33:32 -0800 Received: from n13a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.24]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCMHq-0003Wy-2z for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:33:32 -0800 DomainKey-Signature: Received: from [66.218.69.4] by n13.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2005 18:32:55 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.29] by mailer4.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2005 18:32:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email X-Sender: ben@goertzel.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 13242 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 18:32:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2005 18:32:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intelligenesiscorp.com) (208.234.8.229) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 18:32:53 -0000 Received: from PICKLEWOMAN (vetta.vettatech.com [200.196.45.33]) by intelligenesiscorp.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id j2IIWhAm026555 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:32:46 -0500 Message-ID: <022c01c52bf9$a5613730$7800020a@PICKLEWOMAN> To: References: <44275d07f070dd249c78acf2c8fd2536@xahlee.org> <012501c52bcd$08e877f0$7800020a@PICKLEWOMAN> <20050318181122.GL26000@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Originating-IP: 208.234.8.229 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 From: "Ben Goertzel" X-Yahoo-Profile: bgoertzel MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:32:45 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0229_01C52BCF.BBC2FD30" X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 9608 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ben@goertzel.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C52BCF.BBC2FD30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Robin, For sure, as a Lojban newbie, I'm skating on thin ice here... But I can see a lot of mechanisms in Lojban where, if they were removed, th= en the language would be highly difficult to use for informal communication= . On the other hand, natural languages are really redundant -- you could remo= ve a LOT of mechanisms from a natural language and it would still be practi= cally usable, because there are so many workarounds... With Lojban, clearly there are no (or hardly any) mechanisms that could be = removed and still leave the language usable.....=20=20 And my guess is that there are a few mechanisms that will still be added to= Lojban in the future to make the language more usable (though given my rel= ative ignorance I hesitate to suggest what these might be at this stage...) It seems like it has been a lot of work to add enough mechanisms to Lojban = to make it usable without sacrificing the spirit of the language.. -- Ben ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robin Lee Powell=20 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com=20 Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:11 PM Subject: [lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:13:22AM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > Even if one found another logical-language-structure that was > fundamentally better than Lojban, I still suspect it would take a > lot of effort to "tune" it into a really workable language (which > so far as I can tell, Lojban *just barely* is, in spite of all the > work that's gone into it...) Any justification for that last bit? -Robin, who has written almost 30K words in Lojban in the last 3 months. --=20 http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com=20 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20 ADVERTISEMENT =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/ =20=20=20=20=20=20 b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com =20=20=20=20=20=20 c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service= .=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C52BCF.BBC2FD30 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hey Robin,
 
For sure, as a Lojban newbie, I'm skating on thin ice here...
 
But I can see a lot of mechanisms in Lojban where, if they were removed, then the language would be highly difficult to use for informal communication.
 
On the other hand, natural languages are really redundant -- you could remove a LOT of mechanisms from a natural language and it would still be practically usable, because there are so many workarounds...
 
With Lojban, clearly there are no (or hardly any) mechanisms that could be removed and still leave the language usable..... 
 
And my guess is that there are a few mechanisms that will still be added to Lojban in the future to make the language more usable (though given my relative ignorance I hesitate to suggest what these might be at this stage...)
 
It seems like it has been a lot of work to add enough mechanisms to Lojban to make it usable without sacrificing the spirit of the language..
 
-- Ben
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Lee Powell
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:13:22AM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Even if one found another logical-language-structure that was
> fundamentally better than Lojban, I still suspect it would take a
> lot of effort to "tune" it into a really workable language (which
> so far as I can tell, Lojban *just barely* is, in spite of all the
> work that's gone into it...)

Any justification for that last bit?

-Robin, who has written almost 30K words in Lojban in the last 3
months.

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/






To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com




To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links
------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C52BCF.BBC2FD30--