From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhDU7JLpBBoEkyqK3w@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 10:20:20 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PaXy3-00058A-15; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:20 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf17109420wwb.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:08 -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:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=7FlWsxwLYhVTScXpfG65WJIKBf9I4QaDCGd0hLFMiAo=; b=CgGhRVyARmB90lqWb3vLZ+gNnL6m/8Ud5vpg3bI93oP18KxPYcnqZVKSTqEJ7APZ1O HIqjaQPRVNnww2vqoIxLePKK395ViKxexLh+ZbCIOz+xNmqjI1kSTk2XI0JKhDr8/xPR blBlg7TyS8P2nvk6fy4vpLyLMF4k9a42JJ3bw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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=nlDwgQECd0gpYswtqJ8Hjrm5ciHO4spjrmHjuccjZpAwd5YEXrTZLKV117BU9IMSWz WMarwgvNEkf9xULt+MK6vFgr4SkQssXmwssceZpxME5GHNZEuH6PxO5cPKeErgODMr1m x4YQy4PR8UjTmj3kT3SmiC2Lojm7nVys0nhGQ= Received: by 10.216.46.143 with SMTP id r15mr3424709web.17.1294251604354; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.26.28 with SMTP id b28ls1041205eea.5.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.123.10 with SMTP id u10mr120587eeh.6.1294251603265; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.123.10 with SMTP id u10mr120586eeh.6.1294251603240; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ey0-f177.google.com (mail-ey0-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z15si246777eeh.2.2011.01.05.10.20.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.177; Received: by eyd9 with SMTP id 9so6393673eyd.8 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.31.78 with SMTP id x14mr19158301ebc.1.1294251601583; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:20:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.28.73 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:20:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 13:20:01 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) From: Alex Rozenshteyn To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c0ef2f6604204991d6e92 --0015174c0ef2f6604204991d6e92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 More and more I find myself wishing I could upvote comments people make. On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Robin Lee Powell < rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > Ivo: Sorry, this isn't really about you; you just happen to be the > person I decided to respond to. Lots of people have said similar > things. > > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:02:28PM +0100, Ivo Doko wrote: > > On 4 January 2011 21:57, Lindar wrote: > > > > > I'm -not- going to vote for lojban. It has not been and definitely > > > isn't now a candidate auxlang. > > > > > > > I absolutely agree. I love lojban, but it is far from ready to be > > a serious auxlang candidate. Even Esperanto is a much better > > auxlang candidate than lojban at the moment - it's true that it's > > far from being completely irregular and logical and that it's only > > suited for people whose native language is an Indo-European > > language, but it's a fully defined, complete and functioning > > language, which lojban is very far from being at the moment. > > "very far"? *Really*?? > > Y'all have weird standards/requirements. Lojban is *FAR* more fully > defined than Esperanto. > > No, really: it is. Esperanto doesn't have a formal grammar of any > kind, for starters. > > We know far more about how Lojban grammatical structures work than > *any other actually spoken language on the planet*. > > We have already won that prize: Lojban is the most precisely, > formally specified language that there is, for any language with its > number of speakers or higher. Period. I challenge anyone to find > anything even *remotely close* to the CLL in terms of covering every > *possible* grammatical combination. Even if you can find such a > thing, the formal grammar takes it so far ahead of everything else > they can't possibly hope to catch up. > > That's "fully defined"; now for "complete and functioning". > > The reason that Lojban *seems* flaky is: > > 1. When people have trouble saying something in Esperanto, they > simply import a word or phrase or grammatical structure from a > natlang, and everyone's OK with this. Current Lojban culture > refuses to do that. > > As a historical note, this *was* acceptable, to some extent, > around the time the CLL was published, which I think was why they > thought the language was all-the-way-done. See noralujv if you > don't believe me; there are some natlang imports there that would > cause most current Lojbanists to scream. > > 2. We all are a bunch of picky, whiny, geeks (that is intended more > as a factual description rather than an insult), so our response to > "huh, I don't see how to do that" tends to be, since we can't just > import a natlang solution, "OMG LODGEBANS ARE > BROKEN!!!!!1!!one!!11!!cos(0)!1!". > > 3. We all have a tendency to do this *before* actually learning the > language all that well. 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. Most of the "problems" that people > freak out about are already well understood by oldbies. > > 4. Nobody shouts "Wow this is well specified!!!" at the top of > their lungs, but they certainly shout their complaints. Geeks have > a shared culture that compliments are private and insults are > public; it's deeply fucked up. See > http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate/ > > I can say anything I need to say in Lojban, modulo my own vocabulary > knowledge. This puts it ahead of 99.999% of conlangs. Saying that > it is very far from being complete and functioning is ridiculous, > and pretty insulting to a lot of people's hard work. > > -Robin > > -- > http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. > Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot > is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" > is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ > > -- > 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. > > -- Alex R -- 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. --0015174c0ef2f6604204991d6e92 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable More and more I find myself wishing I could upvote comments people make.


On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at = 11:52 AM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
Ivo: Sorry, this isn't really about you= ; you just happen to be the
person I decided to respond to. =A0Lots of people have said similar
things.


On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:02:28PM +0100, Ivo Doko wrote:
> On 4 January 2011 21:57, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm -not- going to vote for lojban. It has not been and defin= itely
> > isn't now a candidate auxlang.
> >
>
> I absolutely agree. I love lojban, but it is far from ready to be
> a serious auxlang candidate. Even Esperanto is a much better
> auxlang candidate than lojban at the moment - it's true that it= 9;s
> far from being completely irregular and logical and that it's only=
> suited for people whose native language is an Indo-European
> language, but it's a fully defined, complete and functioning
> language, which lojban is very far from being at the moment.

"very far"? =A0 *Really*??

Y'all have weird standards/requirements. =A0Lojban is *FAR* more fully<= br> defined than Esperanto.

No, really: it is. =A0Esperanto doesn't have a formal grammar of any kind, for starters.

We know far more about how Lojban grammatical structures work than
*any other actually spoken language on the planet*.

We have already won that prize: Lojban is the most precisely,
formally specified language that there is, for any language with its
number of speakers or higher. =A0Period. =A0I challenge anyone to find
anything even *remotely close* to the CLL in terms of covering every
*possible* grammatical combination. =A0Even if you can find such a
thing, the formal grammar takes it so far ahead of everything else
they can't possibly hope to catch up.

That's "fully defined"; now for "complete and functionin= g".

The reason that Lojban *seems* flaky is:

1. =A0When people have trouble saying something in Esperanto, they
simply import a word or phrase or grammatical structure from a
natlang, and everyone's OK with this. =A0Current Lojban culture
refuses to do that.

=A0As a historical note, this *was* acceptable, to some extent,
=A0around the time the CLL was published, which I think was why they
=A0thought the language was all-the-way-done. =A0See noralujv if you
=A0don't believe me; there are some natlang imports there that would =A0cause most current Lojbanists to scream.

2. =A0We all are a bunch of picky, whiny, geeks (that is intended more
as a factual description rather than an insult), so our response to
"huh, I don't see how to do that" tends to be, since we can&#= 39;t just
import a natlang solution, "OMG LODGEBANS ARE
BROKEN!!!!!1!!one!!11!!cos(0)!1!".

3. =A0We all have a tendency to do this *before* actually learning the
language all that well. =A0The truth of the matter is that you really
*can* say anything you want in Lojban; LNC and alis prove that
pretty conclusively, I think. =A0Most of the "problems" that peop= le
freak out about are already well understood by oldbies.

4. =A0Nobody shouts "Wow this is well specified!!!" at the top of=
their lungs, but they certainly shout their complaints. =A0Geeks have
a shared culture that compliments are private and insults are
public; it's deeply fucked up. =A0See
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate/

I can say anything I need to say in Lojban, modulo my own vocabulary
knowledge. =A0This puts it ahead of 99.999% of conlangs. =A0Saying that
it is very far from being complete and functioning is ridiculous,
and pretty insulting to a lot of people's hard work.

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/= : =A0Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.loj= ban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this senten= ce is false"
is "na nei". =A0 My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Alex R

--
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.
--0015174c0ef2f6604204991d6e92--