From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDWuZjpBBoEfTytKA@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 11:49:58 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PavqL-0006VK-UL; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:58 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf18310678wwb.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:47 -0800 (PST) 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:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LvK8GEUoDq7nb7b8hOH58/uaz725aWv07AOA//SkM64=; b=UM2V2BkyQ2tPhh6843DX6fu9jhkxeJPekGjG0ImZL+zil+hAbLSdJ04omx5n7KeXNJ U4Tg4XZxhMKk2psX3OE7erBvMr2K09ThMZbV+X2OEnqHN4vmdo6zDFBjP7POEY1zwVGa GAlFyfsOS++v7qHCcfnaGmCiAOBSjKCivn98w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JWqATVcNGnRLqIJnun0z8/HaGDUNZD0uYzsYUW43TP1/gRgeu3afPqwhwhnW3iZ88i hcCUjeK8feiH7fdv4zI4GuleJIJEO3bpxPBm3b4cif43vctLDeA7RCiZQaHREryligax RdclFu+CUAC6GN8gLz3ANRGEBhR9RCsA39YEE= Received: by 10.216.173.84 with SMTP id u62mr219027wel.14.1294343382731; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:42 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.102.89 with SMTP id f25ls1963672wbo.0.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.128.7 with SMTP id i7mr814423wbs.14.1294343382045; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.128.7 with SMTP id i7mr814422wbs.14.1294343381987; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com (mail-ww0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id t13si3814615wbc.4.2011.01.06.11.49.40; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.49; Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so17254876wwb.30 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.72.198 with SMTP id n6mr10196624wbj.91.1294343297352; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:48:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 11sm17060820wbi.0.2011.01.06.11.48.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:48:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D261C7C.7050503@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:48:12 +0000 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <4D25F32F.8000209@gmail.com> <931644.77513.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <931644.77513.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John E Clifford, On 06/01/2011 18:41: > From: And Rosta > Lojban's so-called formal grammar does nothing but define a > set of structures of phonological strings. What a real grammar would do i= s > define a set of correspondences between sentence forms and sentence meani= ngs. > > However, even though Lojban has no true formal grammar, I think it would = be > easier to write one for Lojban than for almost any other language that ha= s a > speech community, though one expects it would be hard for the community t= o > accept it as definitional. > > **Are we quibbling here about the difference between syntax and grammar? = There > is a use of "grammar" that is all-encompassing, from phonology through > pragmatics, and Lojban certainly doesn't have that, though it lacks only = the > last two chunks, I don't think there's quibbling going on here. For a language you need a le= vel of form, the stuff that gets interpreted phonetically, and a level of m= eaning, the stuff that gets interpreted pragmatically, and correspondences = between the two levels. What you call the levels and the correspondence rul= es is a separate matter. > But, since these have resisted formulation in Linguistics so > far, even at the theoretical level, it seems unfair to criticize Lojaban = for > lacking what Logic and Linguistics have yet to provide good models -- or = even > criteria -- for. Efforts along this line tend to involve and idealized > representational language, almost all of which end up looking a lot like = first > order predicate logic, meaning that the crucial step in the process from = Lojban > form to meaning would be -- with a few caveats -- a snap. Hopefully it would be a snap, but it's these rules that the formal definiti= on/specification of the language requires, and not the formal grammar (save= for whichever bits of the formal grammar are necessary for the form--meani= ng correspondence rules). Regarding the question of whether it would indeed= be a snap, the requisite rules would in most cases need to be invented, so= there'd be a political difficulty at least as much as a linguistic one. >> The truth of the matter is that you really >> *can* say anything you want in Lojban; LNC and alis prove that >> pretty conclusively, I think. > > This is debatable in a number of ways. First, the formal specification do= esn't > explicitly cover everything ordinary language might require (cf. problems= with > "if", with alternatival questions, etc.). Second, the claim could be true= in > only the trivial sense that the basics of predicate structure are suffici= ent to > express all needed meanings; i.e. you can ignore everything but predicate > structure and define new predicates to express whatever meaning you need.= Third, > some of the conventions that have arisen in usage to express needed meani= ngs are > not compositional, so their status as licit Lojban is questionable. > > ** I need to be reminded of what "compositional" means here The meaning of the whole is predictably composed from the meaning of the pa= rts. > and see some > examples of problem cases. The problems with "if" and the milk-or-cream = joke > are real enough but clearly don't need solutions outside the existing syn= tax, > only a better use of what is already there (stiop thinking of them as > connectives being one useful approach). I don't think anything needs solutions outside the existing syntax. But the= re is still stuff that needs solutions (within the existing syntax). > The design of the language itself has little intrinsic excellence (when v= iewed > ahistorically), and it is naive to deny that it is massively incomplete. = The > achievement has been in building and sustaining the user-community, so th= at of > all languages with a user-community, Lojban is the one that comes closest= to > being an explicitly specified logical language. The language itself could= not > have been substantially improved without great detriment to the user-comm= unity. > > **But, of course, a large portion of that community came to Lojban precis= ely > because of the claim to be unambiguous in one fairly major way. Without = that > claim, the group would be significantly smaller, nearer, say, toki pona (= maybe > 50 with a little fudging and an awareness base pf a few hundred). It does seem that the great majority of Lojbanists are attracted by its aim= or claim to be a logical language, but there are very few who are so dissa= tisfied with the design and/or specification that they would risk weakening= the community by strengthening the language design. To put it another way,= the great majority of Lojbanists are also attracted by its having a flouri= shing user-community, and rank the maintainance of the community higher tha= n the quality of the language. --And. --=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.