From ben@goertzel.org Fri Mar 18 10:32:54 2005 Return-Path: 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> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:32:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0229_01C52BCF.BBC2FD30" 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" Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1278257 X-Yahoo-Profile: bgoertzel X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23970 ------=_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: quoted-printable
Hey Robin,
 
For sure, as a Lojban newbie, I'm ska= ting on=20 thin ice here...
 
But I can see a lot of mechanisms in = Lojban=20 where, if they were removed, then the language would be highly difficult to= use=20 for informal communication.
 
On the other hand, natural languages are r= eally=20 redundant -- you could remove a LOT of mechanisms from a natural language a= nd it=20 would still be practically usable, because there are so many=20 workarounds...
 
With Lojban, clearly there are no (or hard= ly any)=20 mechanisms that could be removed and still leave the language usable.....&n= bsp;=20
 
And my guess is that there are a= few=20 mechanisms that will still be added to Lojban in the future to make th= e=20 language more usable (though given my relative ignorance I hesitate to sugg= est=20 what these might be at this stage...)
 
It seems like it has been a lot of work to= add=20 enough mechanisms to Lojban to make it usable without sacrificing the spiri= t of=20 the language..
 
-- Ben
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Fro= m:=20 Ro= bin Lee=20 Powell
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:11= =20 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: lojban ills:= =20 implicit emphasis

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:13:22AM -0500, Ben Goertzel= =20 wrote:
> Even if one found another logical-language-structure that= =20 was
> fundamentally better than Lojban, I still suspect it would ta= ke=20 a
> lot of effort to "tune" it into a really workable language=20 (which
> so far as I can tell, Lojban *just barely* is, in spite of= all=20 the
> work that's gone into it...)

Any justification for tha= t=20 last bit?

-Robin, who has written almost 30K words in Lojban in th= e=20 last 3
months.

--
http://www.digitalkingd= om.org/~rlpowell/=20 *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reas= on #237=20 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the=20 Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/





To=20 unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C52BCF.BBC2FD30--