From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDq0pjpBBoEthWx9g@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 12:43:39 2011 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PawgI-0006zK-Bm; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:39 -0800 Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19sf15657957gxk.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:27 -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:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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; bh=bzsnBkC2i5vMg4Elk52VK1+zA/tkqLzhck66y9KpXJE=; b=sOVIaMvu0Oe/W3NHSWqvBfjow3RXoOlRt06QKdEWdaYz6X8kwqzrxZtWBnPy2gFG4E AHxdmPNnUsWM9sZXZdL0qPUURoSgQ4BpUpWMJnkNEDoC/cKGkztHyJWxUsNBMApQ3Goa mrJuLFMYpYuSvifdwxLZD7Qk7Zv1aoAQYKuYE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version: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; b=rw3jJF/+iye8JzLnr3Y4lCxvcv3Pudt1LTArq5roiJ5lpaQP09iFmz/ifuJLZW9YVN iZvLlUI1hzaRPvAQR6K/3f2UyuFy2oN3BI+1Cb6qj3Tttvv0Kdd80WNCT8aDP50+CMUO r0DM/SDqxSOhY7F+/Zq1F64NPyxWQye+gVI98= Received: by 10.236.109.49 with SMTP id r37mr939756yhg.24.1294346602869; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:22 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.239.3 with SMTP id m3ls3408400anh.0.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.213.5 with SMTP id l5mr3918397ang.34.1294346602288; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.213.5 with SMTP id l5mr3918396ang.34.1294346602271; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.117]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id f5si10302902anh.2.2011.01.06.12.43.21; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:21 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.117 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.117; Received: (qmail 64069 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jan 2011 20:43:20 -0000 Message-ID: <753182.62185.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: hsFY4jUVM1mcZ7BXU2HYxvSOePVrMQbgjBBgjl_dS8S1FXo hcw3ZgjQ._g6h_uHZpXH9CH_CGecf7CHU3FzDs8MeiHzUio31Ty2yvIjD0Wa PLXDgRkJuTHpQwmF_rYCs2QM_.YImcTlJj_LMl8CSditrUy.GXeHNP_fI5dh ywxOywH3U8wV1HaRqZDQOT3nu6i1ts2r9uvhfmryZs8XR53aKPY6LAvZvidI KlV0Qcm.G2rSZ6GIpjlqqHeNzR7FhR1E8VaOhwkaQ2Ya5cpFfUJhPWgtZCwq 6kiMUszaJK0cbOMIHMxiTBXapTKpqB5nX0hK49mIsoIF85WWmVimrhUzW0si vOn8roQuTTfjf6sbyLD3aAa8cW.FZ6vKTMP2ufMFOcj6PHCzDQdqBVHthDj2 QiF5nAOCTx0O5 Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:43:20 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 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> <4D261C7C.7050503@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:43:20 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <4D261C7C.7050503@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.117 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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 ----- Original Message ---- From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 1:48:12 PM Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) 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 is > define a set of correspondences between sentence forms and sentence meanings. > > 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 has a > speech community, though one expects it would be hard for the community to > 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 level of form, the stuff that gets interpreted phonetically, and a level of meaning, the stuff that gets interpreted pragmatically, and correspondences between the two levels. What you call the levels and the correspondence rules is a separate matter. **OK, but then don't complain if someone calls a syntax a grammar. When I say only lacks two chunks, I should add that every other language also laks those chunk and also the one before, which Lojban has (almost?) > 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 definition/specification of the language requires, and not the formal grammar (save for whichever bits of the formal grammar are necessary for the form--meaning 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. **I'm not following here. What is the political difficulty in given obvious rules for untangled conjoined terms or predicates or even blobs like briditail. There are some less than obvious places, to be sure, but doing the first bit is already more than we can do -- even by hand -- for any other language. >> 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 doesn'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 sufficient 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 meanings >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 parts. > 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 syntax, > only a better use of what is already there (stop thinking of them as > connectives being one useful approach). I don't think anything needs solutions outside the existing syntax. But there is still stuff that needs solutions (within the existing syntax). > The design of the language itself has little intrinsic excellence (when viewed > ahistorically), and it is naive to deny that it is massively incomplete. The > achievement has been in building and sustaining the user-community, so that 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-community. > > **But, of course, a large portion of that community came to Lojban precisely > 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 dissatisfied 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 flourishing user-community, and rank the maintainance of the community higher than the quality of the language. Well, yes, success breeds success and all. I am inclined to think that at least a significant portion of the present community would go over to an improved language, if they were sure it was improved. But I fear that the kind of things you suggest doing would not be obvious improvements (they may in fact be improvements, but it would not be obvious that they are -- see the years of xorlo discussions, for example). --And. -- -- 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.