From lojban+bncCOzcnrWBFBCYmoLeBBoEMbZpYg@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 07:37:35 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f166.google.com ([209.85.221.166]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0boQ-0007CB-IM; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:37:35 -0700 Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38sf3952141qyk.1 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:37:24 -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:received-spf:received:mime-version:sender :received:in-reply-to:references:date:received:message-id: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:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=oZSjZ8GWPPzl4UJjwYU/NW6ympPSGw0n9xRqyB2uPWA=; b=E3+g8VxPLKDU+FYxFvNjRajOqP3osKLN7SPE3Pe6KMRNyuxYCqdiS6XKxHxWfmuVUG p7dni6SXilR4Mq+wFRDmrblwwdO8UxxvYp6G/oW7k3qmC8pcsC0mSxQw45NKUvbA3tfJ rvOiiGgH+9lmfMPvHkP3rezpHMeuK/zgYxyrU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=3BEHLQz4A8LI8BtmyYd7SrFNIo3YnZWmLQUKlqn93YEUXCZFDHBoF2V3zsbQXbTAkq U+GTX9wz3nobbVyRg76WPyoVyU8fXml63/w2t+NScFBQqwT6EebyyEhD/Sk2GL7nEXfc lweNlQ5qvmFifq/+VHFRokdhvEDFaUfGntOOE= Received: by 10.229.127.101 with SMTP id f37mr48863qcs.11.1270910232229; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.38.138 with SMTP id b10ls353277qae.4.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.41.148 with SMTP id o20mr158275qae.22.1270910230874; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.167.206 with SMTP id r14mr393811vcy.0.1270906375914; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.167.206 with SMTP id r14mr393810vcy.0.1270906375874; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com (mail-qy0-f194.google.com [209.85.221.194]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si5931242vws.0.2010.04.10.06.32.54; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of pascal.akihiko@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.194 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.194; Received: by mail-qy0-f194.google.com with SMTP id 32so4169747qyk.12 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.45.20 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100409002127.GA11541@digitalkingdom.org> <867212.21796.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:32:54 +0100 Received: by 10.229.38.69 with SMTP id a5mr2153358qce.15.1270906374674; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-announcements] Essay on the future of Lojban, with a simple poll for the community. From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of pascal.akihiko@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.194 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=pascal.akihiko@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: pascal.akihiko@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/ff3f1d7808d3dab9 List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016363b7fa60158ce0483e1f319 --0016363b7fa60158ce0483e1f319 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 9 April 2010 20:31, Christopher Doty wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:08, John E Clifford wrote: > >> It might be useful to list the ways in which Lojban fails to meet human >> language standards. I personally can't think of one (even xorlo has, alas, >> human analogs). Remember that at least one school of linguists think that >> all sentences in any natural language are merely transforms of predicate >> logic sentences, with minor loss of information. >> >> Oops. In theory iirc Lojban can require processing depths that no human >> language in fact has (though I am not sure that there is a theory that says >> they can't have it) and some parts of Lojban do require keeping in mind the >> details of the developing sentence structure which again exceed the need in >> natural languages (again only in fact perhaps). >> > > (Quoting from two different emails for convenience...) > > I am, very very fortunate not be part of the school of linguistics that > believes 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 happen > and certain things don't. Maybe they CAN, but the fact that they don't is > pretty telling about human brains process speech. > It reminds me of this article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/roots-of-langua/ English, Russian, Finnish, Chinese, Swahili, and many others belong to the SVO type, so one could think it's telling about a certain 'natural' sentence structure at least for the native speakers of these languages. But it turns out that those speakers tend to find SOV more natural despite how they register the verb arguments in their natlangs' real usage. And your point still holds, since the actual majority (75%) of the world's languages are SOV. 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 (most > often as an oblique phrase; i.e., a preposition or a postposition)) that > indicates how the additional argument relates to the predicate. Yet, Lojban > has gismu which take more than four arguments. If it were testable, I would > put a LOT of money the fact that, after Lojban was released into the wild, > you could do a text count and find that predicates rarely, if ever, have > more than three arguments in them, and that the three arguments pretty much > always had the three closest to the gismu. > I agree. > 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 > that 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 > more slots. The material a bucket is made of has far less to do with > bucketness than, say, all of the things in klama have to do with going. And > why does "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 everything. > Again I agree. I would prefer "ti baktu ma'e lo slasi" to "ti baktu fi lo slasi" (although I would further like "ti slasi baktu" than "ti baktu ma'e lo slasi" in most cases). mu'o mi'e tijlan -- 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. --0016363b7fa60158ce0483e1f319 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 9 April 2010 20:31, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:08, = John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
It might be useful to list the ways in = which Lojban fails to meet human language standards.=A0 I personally can= 9;t think of one (even xorlo has, alas, human analogs).=A0 Remember that at= least one school of linguists think that all sentences in any natural lang= uage are merely transforms of predicate logic sentences, with minor loss of= information.

Oops.=A0 In theory iirc Lojban can r= equire processing depths that no human language in fact has (though I am no= t sure that there is a theory that says they can't have it) and some pa= rts of Lojban do require keeping in mind the details of the developing sent= ence structure which again exceed the need in natural languages (again only= in fact perhaps).

(Quoting from two different emails f= or convenience...)=A0

I am, very very fortunate no= t be part of the school of linguistics that believes in silly things like t= ransformations (nor Russel's teapot). =A0When I say that Lojban violate= s things that human languages do, I'm not appealing in any sense to &qu= ot;Universal Grammar;" I'm simply say that, when you look at the l= anguages of the world (henceforth, "languages"), certain things h= appen and certain things don't. =A0Maybe they CAN, but the fact that th= ey don't is pretty telling about human brains process speech.

It reminds me of this article:

http://www.= wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/roots-of-langua/

English, Russian= , Finnish, Chinese, Swahili, and many others belong to the SVO type, so one= could think it's telling about a certain 'natural' sentence st= ructure at least for the native speakers of these languages. But it turns o= ut that those speakers tend to find SOV more natural despite how they regis= ter the verb arguments in their natlangs' real usage. And your point st= ill holds, since the actual majority (75%) of the world's languages are= SOV.

I see two, maybe three, areas where there is a problem from= a linguistic perspective. =A0The 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 languag= es have three or less. =A0If you get more than four, you ALWAYS have some s= ort of marking (most often as an oblique phrase; i.e., a preposition or a p= ostposition)) that indicates how the additional argument relates to the pre= dicate. =A0Yet, Lojban has gismu which take more than four arguments. =A0If= it were testable, I would put a LOT of money the fact that, after Lojban w= as released into the wild, you could do a text count and find that predicat= es rarely, if ever, have more than three arguments in them, and that the th= ree arguments pretty much always had the three closest to the gismu.

I agree.
=A0
The second problem (or second half of this first problem) is tha= t some of the gismu seem to have tons of extra stuff in them that is not so= mething that would be included in the meaning of a word in any language. = =A0"Bucket," for example, contains a predicate slot for the mater= ial the bucket is made from. This, as far as I could tell, was thrown in to= make the gismu have more slots. =A0The material a bucket is made of has fa= r less to do with bucketness than, say, all of the things in klama have to = do with going. =A0And why does "bucket" have it and not, say, &qu= ot;bird"? =A0I 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? =A0If buckets get a slot for material, so should everything.

Again I agree. I would prefer "ti baktu ma= 'e lo slasi" to "ti baktu fi lo slasi" (although I would= further like "ti slasi baktu" than "ti baktu ma'e lo sl= asi" in most cases).

mu'o mi'e tijlan

--
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.
--0016363b7fa60158ce0483e1f319--