From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxD46ZjpBBoEWMiRAw@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 13:32:59 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PaxS3-0007Du-Lw; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:59 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf18474498wyb.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:45 -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=UFBtnoAG1Z21XgM9JHUmZt5w+bvgqSsm/1+Pg8d0NQw=; b=jsE8agHT1Rwcun5fxre5xGa7s1TBOd1+QiVGezx3bfxmsAN13PqcWjCiC6FighyERu +5sRDGmGYnERLEYHlG3HEafjjgwowoRVwEyl375Ht6P1ZFEL0QeZhqOUl9L3kJNQj40c UqD6X0ZpSUY0j30m0a7zPrwlNEEfpA8SKDv20= 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=NUwgSa7s1vQkqj/+4T37HMqUxNC05iZNaSiaxn01//jTfZ4C6a2ZSNO4achZynoN8A G0sWgb5E7ADC9TUmp/on+/VK//8pbfmkYRDq7wS83UN3wrQ2mcW1fmmI5rM9qto2ZFKP aBvvAn3MyIVWopN56wg+AnIKRYCFbtt/pKXbg= Received: by 10.216.172.73 with SMTP id s51mr3418058wel.27.1294349560226; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:40 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.184.76 with SMTP id cj12ls4657263wbb.3.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.144.200 with SMTP id a8mr822192wbv.29.1294349558664; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.144.200 with SMTP id a8mr822191wbv.29.1294349558625; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (mail-ww0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y33si3826112wbd.2.2011.01.06.13.32.37; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so16870664wwi.24 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.153.11 with SMTP id i11mr9299484wbw.4.1294349557413; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:37 -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 m13sm17132141wbz.3.2011.01.06.13.32.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D2634F2.5080303@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:32:34 +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> <20110106171347.GY17534@digitalkingdom.org> <4D260BE0.3020909@gmail.com> <20110106185151.GE17534@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20110106185151.GE17534@digitalkingdom.org> 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 74.125.82.43 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 Robin Lee Powell, On 06/01/2011 18:51: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:37:20PM +0000, And Rosta wrote: >> "Formal grammar" has a further meaning in linguistics, which is >> "grammar formulated in an explicit way", and it's this meaning >> that is relevant to the specification of a human language. > > Ah. I don't know that use. Can you point me to an example of such > a thing? Google for "formal linguistics" and you get this use or variations on it. =20 >>>> What a real grammar would do is define a set of correspondences >>>> between sentence forms and sentence meanings. >>> >>> I don't know what that is, but it's not a formal grammar. Ask >>> google if you don't believe me. :) I have no idea how you could >>> formalize such a thing (and I'm not terribly sure I care, to be >>> honest). >> >> If you think about it, I think you will find you do care. >> Obviously the essential function of a language is to define >> correspondences between forms and meanings. If your putative >> specification of a language describes only possible forms and says >> nothing of meanings, then it is simply not a specification of a >> language. (Rather, it would be a specification of a "formal >> language" in the sense referred to above.) > > Of course; the CLL does, in fact, cover semantics in quite a lot of > detail Of course. >> As for you having no idea how to formalize such a thing, surely >> you can imagine having and implementing the design goal of a >> speakable predicate logic (which was one of Loglan's original >> goals). Retrofitting such a thing onto existing Lojban would be >> difficult, > > Wait what? How do we not have that? We have it partially but not completely. =20 >> but surely the principle of it is easy to grasp: rules that take >> the phonological forms of Lojban sentences and translate them into >> predicate logic. > > That doesn't do anything for general semantics, though. IsRed(x) as > a predicate is just a suggestively named lisp token ( see > http://singinst.org/ourresearch/publications/GISAI/meta/glossary.html#glo= ss_lisp_tokens > and http://lesswrong.com/lw/la/truly_part_of_you/ ); to formalize > actual semantics in the way I think you're talking about, you need > to formalize what it means for something to be Red.You can't do > that in bare predicate logic; you'd do samething like > HasWavelengthBetween(x,630nm,700nm), but that doesn't help, because > now you have to have predicates for nanometers, and what a > wavelength is, and on and on and on. No, it's the job of the language specification to link the form /red/ to th= e (notional) encyclopedia entry for Red, but not to specify the content of = the encyclopedia entry. Similarly, it is the job of the language to say tha= t phoneme /c/ is realized as [S], but not to then define the phonetics (aer= odynamics, acoustics, etc.) of [S]. So the semantic task of the language specification is (i) to define the mea= nings of terms that don't simply point to an encyclopedia entry and (ii) t= o define how meanings combine to yield sentence meanings. > As far as I can tell, the semantic descriptions of Lojban in the CLL > are about as good as can reasonably be achieved without falling down > the rabbit hole of perfect semantic description, I don't see how it > differs from "spoken predicate logic" in that respect, and I'm very > curious as to whether you have evidence to the contrary. CLL is partial but incomplete (which is not to derogate CLL's achievement o= r excellence). Thinking back to ten years ago, there were two main sorts of= problem. One was that even where CLL specifies what X means and what Y mea= ns, it doesn't specify what X and Y mean when they occur together, especial= ly which has scope over which -- i.e. the 'syntax of semantics'. The other = was that important stuff such as kau constructions didn't have translations= into predicate logic (or anything similar). =20 >> The major incompleteness is in the specification of >> correspondences between forms and meanings (i.e. predicate logic). >> I don't mean the definitions of individual brivla, but rather the >> meanings of sentences containing nonbrivla stuff. > > I don't feel a significant lack there. If you do, please make > updates to the Notes sections of the various BPFK pages so I can try > to fix it. I appreciate the offer, and once upon a time I devoted a huge chunk of my s= pare time to pointing out stuff that needs fixing -- to what was at the tim= e a community led by Lojbab that believed nothing should be fixed and every= thing left to usage. Nowadays I lack the time and to some extent the motiva= tion. --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.