From lojban+bncCMDl9o3BFBCTkf7dBBoEBofoog@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 09 13:06:07 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f137.google.com ([209.85.211.137]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0KSo-00068T-Po for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:06:06 -0700 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf542288ywh.28 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:56 -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:received:received:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rGZgxb1ZuGfPaV613OdXlq6iaFjZQdiKDBTsB9hB3Ag=; b=wBZNJH48LYwRrzQb2n52OZBORTJM+1DsKdFdKS4ttBt3ZeWQYfBXWtxmgqsvJnUPbn byjHbUNI94gSoLmj1CqxYtDnDVzoSDfxEbuHqTkwBs6WPlzpbk9I2LDYgTzvecitq9AB Pt5SzlZRBzqMS3GH6F0+E2EjFeWGL5jx54zS4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :message-id:references:to:x-mailer: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 :content-transfer-encoding; b=ID4AgAsrYrRCooRVIvkRwl/QMtVImZsmT0nUVkUSzjZPcfcEQhuQfSIhUC56+JQOWf MjNv+bfSJmB/OtawPABzjhWMpk1vQwi+rek7e0rX0CMfSprj0oq7TQZ4uWDNvtZjc/sz uoXnP+lzWeceGxQefGmEkHuHP+icJV8mIEnEA= Received: by 10.91.133.13 with SMTP id k13mr139617agn.23.1270843539889; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.32.206 with SMTP id e14ls402146bkd.2.p; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.156.205 with SMTP id y13mr44686bkw.7.1270843537749; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.156.205 with SMTP id y13mr44685bkw.7.1270843537719; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com (mail-ww0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si1797477bkc.5.2010.04.09.13.05.36; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of michael.everson@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.52; Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so1118028wwd.11 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.155.196 with SMTP id j46mr315794wek.1.1270843536382; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (murrisk2.westnet.ie [88.81.100.235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j8sm2214615gvb.16.2010.04.09.13.05.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-announcements] Essay on the future of Lojban, with a simple poll for the community. From: Michael Everson In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:05:33 +0100 Message-Id: <5BD52966-8515-4803-B313-88F4551A2ACD@gmail.com> References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100409002127.GA11541@digitalkingdom.org> <867212.21796.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of michael.everson@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=michael.everson@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: michael.everson@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/c67f210addc06a0c X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/67657372d9fcf63f Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I really enjoyed reading this. (I am a historical linguist. None of that ge= nerative transformational crap for me.) On 9 Apr 2010, at 20:31, Christopher Doty wrote: > I am, very very fortunate not be part of the school of linguistics that b= elieves in silly things like transformations (nor Russel's teapot). When I= say that Lojban violates things that human languages do, I'm not appealing= in any sense to "Universal Grammar;" I'm simply say that, when you look at= the languages of the world (henceforth, "languages"), certain things happe= n and certain things don't. Maybe they CAN, but the fact that they don't i= s pretty telling about human brains process speech. >=20 > I see two, maybe three, areas where there is a problem from a linguistic = perspective. The first is that languages do not have verbs with more than = four unmarked slots for a predicate, and there are VERY few that have four;= the vast majority of verbs in the vast majority of languages have three or= less. If you get more than four, you ALWAYS have some sort of marking (mo= st often as an oblique phrase; i.e., a preposition or a postposition)) that= indicates how the additional argument relates to the predicate. Yet, Lojb= an has gismu which take more than four arguments. If it were testable, I w= ould put a LOT of money the fact that, after Lojban was released into the w= ild, you could do a text count and find that predicates rarely, if ever, ha= ve more than three arguments in them, and that the three arguments pretty m= uch always had the three closest to the gismu. >=20 > It is worthwhile to note, especially for those who like Lojban to be mind= -bending, that this fact likely has nothing to do with language, and everyt= hing to do with cognition. On average, working memory holds something like= 4-7 items (try using a phone menu with 9 items; it is extremely annoying a= nd frustrating, and makes it hard to do anything except listen to the list = of options). It is thus no surprise that, in languages, four is the maximu= m (three arguments and a verb, with a couple verbs that take four), especia= lly if one considers that most utterances have more than just the verbs and= the arguments. I think this is what you meant by "processing depth"--the p= roblem is that most humans actually CAN'T PROCESS at the depth needed for a= gismu with seven places. You could argue that this processing depth is le= arnable--maybe it is, but I'd bet that learning to hold more in working mem= ory is very closely tied to how much you could process before any training.= This also might be fine for a written language, since you can sit and loo= k at a sentence, but in speech, people just aren't going to be able to proc= ess Lojban. >=20 > The second problem (or second half of this first problem) is that some of= the gismu seem to have tons of extra stuff in them that is not something t= hat would be included in the meaning of a word in any language. "Bucket," = for example, contains a predicate slot for the material the bucket is made = from. This, as far as I could tell, was thrown in to make the gismu have mo= re slots. The material a bucket is made of has far less to do with bucketn= ess than, say, all of the things in klama have to do with going. And why d= oes "bucket" have it and not, say, "bird"? I can call something that isn't= a living bird (say, a drawing of a bird), but why doesn't it a gismu slot = to indicate it's material? If buckets get a slot for material, so should e= verything. >=20 > Both of these things are easily fixed, though, without totally barfing up= Lojban. There might be a few special gismu that have more than four slots= , but for most, the additional slots should really be looked at to see if t= hey are needed, along with the weird ones in words like "bucket." A handfu= l of cmavo (or even gismu) for things like "material made of" would be much= more widely useable, as would a very general something like "means." >=20 > The third thing is more of a pet peeve, and not something I would actuall= y like to see changed (although it is worth considering if a new LoCCan is = created), and that is that the process of word creation results in things w= hich are very, very similar--all gismu, for example, have a set structure w= hich is clearly delimited. Although this is very logical and makes it easy= to point at a word and tell, completely unambiguously, if it is a gismu or= not, it is simply not how languages work. For example, the words for colo= rs in English have no clear relationship to each other, nor that class to t= he class of intransitive verbs. But, in Lojban, EVERYTHING that makes a pr= edicate looks like everything else that makes a predicate. I would very mu= ch doubt that memorizing the 1300 or so gismu in Lojban would be at all com= parable to learning 1300 of, say, Spanish, because there is more for your b= rain to stick to. (This is also part of my objection to Jorge's language-n= ame proposal, but I'll address that separately.) >=20 > So, there 'tis--what the linguist doesn't like about Lojban (which, it is= worth noting, is far less than what he DOES like, but still). >=20 > Chris >=20 > --=20 > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. --=20 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.