From 3jcC8SwoJBlYGICA605F6G4Ay69.0CA9C7zyB4CC4924FCIDG.0CA@groups.bounces.google.com Wed Apr 07 10:28:14 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3jcC8SwoJBlYGICA605F6G4Ay69.0CA9C7zyB4CC4924FCIDG.0CA@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NzZ2o-0007dB-5f for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:28:12 -0700 Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5sf619640gyd.16 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:56 -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:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:received:message-id:subject: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=1N1TOJX9AYEWH0MQAUAPCzJ82cYYY0CFaaZbcXx0OpQ=; b=ODkvNPrKEAVOhvtFqWAqdpWWhbPpLJtN2+2Gdta23qMhDzIU4me/y3uG8vv3EfACmz v2OSocuk21TWhvwVw1J/9cV5aSMPC1XzrdnBBlf3zxxNBkXJxJxylTNlRim2wChM4g39 cDSvnTItevT/m2LfJeruZC3A0N/fOitmyf4Nw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=o+d7DeGoQexHogcuPGVDnqsoOq+HC7D4S8ZY2jTATVR+0kX+mIn64nBy9XVpmJaCR3 +MVqz4O0+n/txFh0IErhiVz1eHBxXSic31tXUIcK5GG1kT6AE7UaymltihES5qm0JNGg 5sIOpl3B8UnkzY/LZqKC0Av+49LPBTGmMHNVM= Received: by 10.150.171.14 with SMTP id t14mr383126ybe.89.1270661261337; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.146.27 with SMTP id y27ls1385886ann.2.p; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.197.28 with SMTP id z28mr735038anp.22.1270661259696; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.197.28 with SMTP id z28mr735035anp.22.1270661259617; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f179.google.com (mail-gy0-f179.google.com [209.85.160.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si1199yxe.2.2010.04.07.10.27.38; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of suomichris@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.179; Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10so596591gyd.38 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.5.20 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:27:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <00c09f76ad870c0d9e04839b81ae@google.com> References: <00c09f76ad870c0d9e04839b81ae@google.com> From: Christopher Doty Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:27:18 -0700 Received: by 10.101.135.2 with SMTP id m2mr8920374ann.95.1270661258180; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Tangent: Is there a better grammar? To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of suomichris@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=suomichris@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: suomichris@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/24eb7bf655dd73ff Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5c043ec7be40483a8e055 --001636c5c043ec7be40483a8e055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think some sort of tonal inclusion would actually be quite helpful and useful in Lojban (and cool!), but I'm not sure what it should look like. It is interesting to thing of, say, marking predicate positions with tone, but this becomes rather redundant (and silly/unfeasible for other linguistic reasons). One obvious place to put tone would be as a simply phoneme. Even a single, marked high tone on vowels would provide a huge increase in the number of gismu that could be constructed. But then that's not really a change in grammar. I've been thinking about this issue, and might send out a sort of manifesto at some point, detailing the things that I would have done differently if I were working with the team designing Lojban--or, at least the things I would have brought to their attention to consider while they were constructing the language. I'm not sure if that will be useful at all for this discussion, but I hope it will. Chris On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 18:30, 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 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. > -- 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. --001636c5c043ec7be40483a8e055 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think some sort of tonal inclusion would actually be quite helpful and us= eful in Lojban (and cool!), but I'm not sure what it should look like. = =A0It is interesting to thing of, say, marking predicate positions with ton= e, but this becomes rather redundant (and silly/unfeasible=A0for other ling= uistic reasons).

One obvious place to put tone would be as a simply phoneme. = =A0Even a single, marked high tone on vowels would provide a huge increase = in the number of gismu that could be constructed. =A0But then that's no= t really a change in grammar.

I've been thinking about this issue, and might send= out a sort of manifesto at some point, detailing the things that I would h= ave done differently if I were working with the team designing Lojban--or, = at least the things I would have brought to their attention to consider whi= le they were constructing the language. =A0I'm not sure if that will be= useful at all for this discussion, but I hope it will.

Chris

On Tue, Apr 6, = 2010 at 18:30, <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 a= re 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 &l= t;get.oren@gmail.co= m> 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. Bo= th have to do with finding ways to logically precise meanings concise enoug= h 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 Lo= jban offer, given that in most propositions we express (in natural language= ) there are many variables and each variable tends to be argument of many p= redicates. The other part is to devise an inventory of predicates that expa= nd to more complex logical structures.]
>
>
>
> I don't really see your case here; if o= ne of the basic goals is to be a useful human language, then I don't se= e any alternative to predicate logic as two-dimensional representation of u= tterances. 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+unsubscr= ibe@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> For more options, visit= this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?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.
--001636c5c043ec7be40483a8e055--