From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDd95LpBBoEB22irA@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 10:43:57 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PaYKt-0004Zg-26; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:57 -0800 Received: by yia27 with SMTP id 27sf9564731yia.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:45 -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: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=0/OwD3dQVN45k5Upjo/g/ERUgratfJxN1LxYD/LTvWc=; b=m36/fBFIFnIdyMkRSZQVcXjPq5g9q81IOvtaDL/7HUJ3x1u2dAgnlgEibMMrBwHeMV yrUmhjoFZafMUCpvP1qlegB8DHwOo1Rqcry8Vm68aAfERYuegD9Nv2RoUkgvfSSm8BQm QjL+cLXWyFXV93g6w9AXTX+NRqSGxz/aPbtdw= 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=GX7XnP9xx0XvUUUCPeUlezDvO37hGKHQeSNUmrWP1YGatGlUa2XzOzByoBQcwRa0rE JwQW/jugdu52qGj+7Dg/Ozj5nCfRZtzaVBIb/TfGFaOT9ddh4mi2A76+tyBy3ZQAiO4h p+lDQNOR1zB5qtum43EnZfsmt8A/BamQeYc64= Received: by 10.91.189.20 with SMTP id r20mr70028agp.50.1294253021085; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.78.146 with SMTP id l18ls1825148ibk.1.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.14.67 with SMTP id f3mr8066126iba.15.1294253020279; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.14.67 with SMTP id f3mr8066124iba.15.1294253020236; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c4si1843550ict.4.2011.01.05.10.43.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.182; Received: by mail-iw0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 39so16864911iwn.27 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.13.137 with SMTP id c9mr23326114iba.37.1294253019063; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.14.197 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:43:39 -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 13:43:39 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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=0022150467ef736a3404991dc350 --0022150467ef736a3404991dc350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 seconded. Totally agree. Awesome rant. But I'm really replying because... you read lesswrong too robin?! That's awesome! I just discovered that site like a month or two ago and have been steadily making my way through the sequences. Awesome site. 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. > > -- 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. --0022150467ef736a3404991dc350 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable seconded. =A0Totally agree. =A0Awesome rant.

But I'm= really replying because... you read lesswrong too robin?! =A0That's aw= esome! =A0I just discovered that site like a month or two ago and have been= steadily making my way through the sequences. =A0Awesome site.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Robin Lee P= owell <= 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.


--
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.
--0022150467ef736a3404991dc350--