From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDn85jpBBoE3mZ5mw@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 13:53:56 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PaxmL-0007i4-8s; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:56 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf18436867wwb.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:46 -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; bh=ufVlT82XaVobqaEmYOrXDTAtYRiZ3ZkwH6hI6u1eVQo=; b=PmiCvd9uaIWsP8se3E+SaWYIM8cgXvx2Z1/yVW1xkNVq+BW2ZegJ7FqYACWj9cDW7S VC62AQqdGf8gntY4d2kU/Uwy9tPMsO0htLDwzUOSjJ0MQMcCl/xFHv0Gco0O+3Gvc+0x Of5Tn5ASKqXOcqpUHSx2Nd6E4HKXW6aU5Dfwk= 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; b=vLq9NB7DLngyRlJpn7W8+50FP5YtCkmRKXjsDp7Ld/RxlAZ4txKJvdPAGx5XhQR1/q yHl+qk8TmnqK/SSCB6RCqkbs9LwijkCyQC143qjnSmJffF5Rx56PjaF4na9XG3sRDHdn EaqQeE/7h7BkHiWmuztYq0i8+z2prX0gGUmDU= Received: by 10.216.46.143 with SMTP id r15mr240752web.17.1294350823128; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:43 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.62.75 with SMTP id x53ls9716992wec.3.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.20.213 with SMTP id p63mr62260wep.13.1294350821916; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.20.213 with SMTP id p63mr62259wep.13.1294350821849; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f170.google.com (mail-wy0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m15si3827594wbg.5.2011.01.06.13.53.40; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.170; Received: by wyb39 with SMTP id 39so16788040wyb.29 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.195.79 with SMTP id eb15mr244569wbb.192.1294350820582; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:40 -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 11sm17144571wbi.6.2011.01.06.13.53.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:53:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D2639E1.3010109@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:53:37 +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> <4D261C7C.7050503@gmail.com> <753182.62185.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <753182.62185.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 74.125.82.170 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 John E Clifford, On 06/01/2011 20:43: >> 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. Until Robin assumed his dictatorial powers recently, it was politically impossible to get any change implemented. --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.