From 3xTW8SwsJBgMjiehuhvirugjpdlo.frpormedqjrrjohjurxsv.frp@groups.bounces.google.com Wed Apr 07 00:36:00 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f160.google.com ([209.85.211.160]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3xTW8SwsJBgMjiehuhvirugjpdlo.frpormedqjrrjohjurxsv.frp@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NzPnl-0001ck-Ud for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:59 -0700 Received: by ywh32 with SMTP id 32sf307035ywh.28 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:in-reply-to:received :message-id:date:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=e6ol7Ev0w3AyIYQIRFjc9YI1542jqV1BdDoxQYA2cp0=; b=qB4gfprCi27o9eE8eJrEMacLoxhb31kL/9gBpoVSoU7A0Mp7KG61V3ZZlb5l4eg3cb 7dn9I3vpioM2p7fasgEl3jL0fnvX/Evrg4p+HTLxOGcbaWDU7ZN4VCmTJBErTIeSGNOK 4EbAaC2WLehybURxjMswvSwW1eRcpMXK0OULs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:message-id:date :subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=PzmZxf05rlOe8Q0JjBMJxkzq6nYT9ubrhlOxH8nr//B1CRUdqsFGQRt4CkZv3N+qaK hb2Xy2CFuQ1+VuaBvayXjSEiNxEcRM3Si4bxwPi+OMek5b8jCfAnmbkCiyKVUh4zXbEc NhGKX+CY45xb2oAI+iVuuHolf5YkkqLfF61YQ= Received: by 10.91.121.9 with SMTP id y9mr613495agm.3.1270625733257; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.213.2.77 with SMTP id 13ls929974ebi.0.p; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.65.65 with SMTP id h1mr438262ebi.4.1270625730777; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.65.65 with SMTP id h1mr438261ebi.4.1270625730731; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f154.google.com (mail-ew0-f154.google.com [209.85.219.154]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si917918ewy.0.2010.04.07.00.35.30; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of GFBeresford@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.154 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.154; Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so55852ewy.10 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Received: by 10.213.48.139 with SMTP id r11mr839347ebf.15.1270625730515; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0014852d325d4f68180483a09bbd@google.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:35:30 +0000 Subject: Re: Re: [lojban] Tangent: Is there a better grammar? From: GFBeresford@gmail.com To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of GFBeresford@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.154 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=GFBeresford@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: gfberesford@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/6d4e31b897cbe4b1 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/90ac8c15b47c7571 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0014852d325d4f67fc0483a09bba --0014852d325d4f67fc0483a09bba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Agreed, guaspi doesn't really differentiate from the predicate logic foundation (if there is a "better" foundation out there, then I have yet to hear of it..not to say it doesn't exist). I was under the impression that lojban was longer than english (and most natural languages) syllable-for-syllable, since so many things need to be expressed in lojban which are usually left to context in english (terminators, etc.)... It's true there are some lojban constructions which are don't translate easily into english, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere "That's one of the problems with lojban; it takes a lot of syllables to express yourself"... If this were true, then the argument is that the extra syllables given by the tonal system allow you to make one-syllable words which stand for two-or-more syllable words, similar to {lei} = {lu'o le}. Of course, I could be wrong. Does anyone know if lojban texts have statistically more/less syllables than their english/natural language equivalents? I suppose to be truly fair, those stats might need to include texts composed in lojban and then translated into english as well... -Geoff On Apr 7, 2010 7:47am, Oren wrote: > Correct me if I'm mistaken, but guaspi appears to have a comparable > vocabulary size, and merely replaces sumti markup with a tonally-modified > cases; that is, it doesn't seem to radically deviate from lojban's > predicate logic foundation, nor make great gains in brevity/simplicity-- > the author claims length is "comparable to english" where I always > thought that lojban was briefer than English. > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 13:28, Robin Lee Powell > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/guaspi/ > -Robin > On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:30:15AM +0000, GFBeresford@gmail.com > wrote: > > I know *someone* tried to make a language similar to lojban using > > the asian tonal system. This would certainly allow shorter > > utterances, since there are WAY more one-syllable sounds > > available... though it isn't really an improved grammar, just a > > different alphabet... > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 2010 2:14am, Oren get.oren@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 01:03, And Rosta and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >[* As I see it, the design problem has two parts. Both have to do > > >with finding ways to logically precise meanings concise enough to > > >be worth the effort of verbalizing. One part is to find a more > > >concise way of of encoding variables than standard predicate logic > > >notation and Lojban offer, given that in most propositions we > > >express (in natural language) there are many variables and each > > >variable tends to be argument of many predicates. The other part > > >is to devise an inventory of predicates that expand to more > > >complex logical structures.] > > > > > > > > >I don't really see your case here; if one of the basic goals is to > > >be a useful human language, then I don't see any alternative to > > >predicate logic as two-dimensional representation of utterances. > > >Or, if there was one. it would seem inherently illogical due to > > >it's complexity. Could you (or anyone) expand this thought? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >Groups "lojban" group. > > > > >To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > > > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > > > > >For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "lojban" group. > > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > > -- > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --0014852d325d4f67fc0483a09bba Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed, guaspi doesn't really differentiate from the predicate logic fo= undation (if there is a "better" foundation out there, then I hav= e yet to hear of it..not to say it doesn't exist).

I was un= der the impression that lojban was longer than english (and most natural la= nguages) syllable-for-syllable, since so many things need to be expressed i= n lojban which are usually left to context in english (terminators, etc.)..= . It's true there are some lojban constructions which are don't tra= nslate easily into english, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere "= That's one of the problems with lojban; it takes a lot of syllables to = express yourself"... If this were true, then the argument is that the = extra syllables given by the tonal system allow you to make one-syllable wo= rds which stand for two-or-more syllable words, similar to {lei} =3D {lu= 9;o le}.

Of course, I could be wrong. Does anyone know if lojban= texts have statistically more/less syllables than their english/natural la= nguage equivalents? I suppose to be truly fair, those stats might need to i= nclude texts composed in lojban and then translated into english as well...=

-Geoff






On Apr 7, 2010 = 7:47am, Oren <get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I= 9;m mistaken, but guaspi appears to have a comparable vocabulary size, and = merely replaces sumti markup with a tonally-modified cases; that is, it doe= sn't seem to radically deviate from lojban's predicate logic founda= tion, nor make great gains in brevity/simplicity-- the author claims length= is "comparable to english" where I always thought that lojban wa= s briefer than English.=A0
>
>
>
> On We= d, Apr 7, 2010 at 13:28, Robin Lee Powell rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> w= rote:
>
>
> http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/guaspi= /
>
>
>
> -Robin
>
> >
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:30:15AM +0000, GFBeresford@g= mail.com
>
> wrote:
>
>
> > I= know *someone* tried to make a language similar to lojban using
> =
> > the asian tonal system. This would certainly allow shorter<= br />>
> > utterances, since there are WAY more one-syllable= sounds
>
> > available... though it isn't really a= n improved grammar, just a
>
> > different alphabet...<= br />>
> >
>
> >
>
> &g= t;
>
> > On Apr 7, 2010 2:14am, Oren get.oren@gmail.com= > wrote:
>
> > >On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 01:03, And= Rosta and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> <= br />> >
>
> > >[* As I see it, the design pro= blem has two parts. Both have to do
>
> > >with find= ing ways to logically precise meanings concise enough to
>
&g= t; > >be worth the effort of verbalizing. One part is to find a more<= br />>
> > >concise way of of encoding variables than sta= ndard predicate logic
>
> > >notation and Lojban off= er, given that in most propositions we
>
> > >expres= s (in natural language) there are many variables and each
>
&= gt; > >variable tends to be argument of many predicates. The other pa= rt
>
> > >is to devise an inventory of predicates th= at expand to more
>
> > >complex logical structures.= ]
>
> >
>
> >
>
> = >
>
> > >I don't really see your case here; i= f one of the basic goals is to
>
> > >be a useful hu= man language, then I don't see any alternative to
>
> = > >predicate logic as two-dimensional representation of utterances.>
> > >Or, if there was one. it would seem inherently= illogical due to
>
> > >it's complexity. Could = you (or anyone) expand this thought?
>
> >
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>=
> >
>
> >
>
> >
&= gt;
> >
>
> > >--
>
> &= gt;
>
> > >You received this message because you are= subscribed to the Google
>
> > >Groups "lojban= " group.
>
> >
>
> > >To po= st to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>
&g= t; >
>
> > >To unsubscribe from this group, send = email to
>
> > >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.=
>
> >
>
> >
>
> &= gt; >For more options, visit this group at
>
> > >= ;http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
> >>
> > --
>
> > You received this mes= sage because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" gro= up.
>
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@g= ooglegroups.com.
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, = send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>
> >= ; For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> They say: =A0"The = first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
>
&= gt; And I'm =A0thinking: =A0"Does it even occur to you to try for = something
>
> other =A0than =A0the default =A0outcome?&quo= t; =A0See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz
>
> http://www.digita= lkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
>
> >
> --
>
>
>
> You receiv= ed this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojba= n" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to lo= jban@googlegroups.com.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group,= send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>
> Fo= r more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?h= l=3Den.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> =
> --
>
> You received this message because you a= re subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
&= gt;
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubsc= ribe@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, vi= sit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0014852d325d4f67fc0483a09bba--