From lojban+bncCPGMg4mHHBDs7ZPpBBoE7sMSow@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 14:56:11 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PacGy-0006kv-SZ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:56:11 -0800 Received: by qwd6 with SMTP id 6sf53439740qwd.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:57 -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=25oHMtcml+m46sWZKbeSD1Cmdf8GbnxIvChP6SIxLIE=; b=aBfmloA+R4Uf8XUZQ55lQKbKLNxhvkfUNJQr6YaSt1I4IgE06BYdtCCxRBN8alWLvk Y5cX0ScafDSIEpa3RHmsKRK02vZzqy59aswof7YLPpbTkfcOgvj0uQlZ2RIBtwBeoQ7k b2X+h/xMf3A6b0LuF8sQPXwVbgHiZpW/BnKcs= 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=sL3+5ZPEnbNplDxlj8CfUqRo60wGM8Fr3Gv/UfZ7HxAg9A4OUG5kjllrkPkIRcXGyw Tb5aXeYnHljKBo6gViaJij+BLHNkaTrE3C8g/S0u+elrW+Y6Rz/z8JoY3a2qrjZW5O7k H6DHg0pX3cTl5Oq/2Vu2swGDUSLMF4yd+BJzo= Received: by 10.229.99.199 with SMTP id v7mr3278306qcn.16.1294268141104; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:41 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.75.218 with SMTP id z26ls5315311qcj.3.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.36.144 with SMTP id t16mr2522486qcd.29.1294268140365; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.36.144 with SMTP id t16mr2522485qcd.29.1294268140322; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f52.google.com (mail-qw0-f52.google.com [209.85.216.52]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l11si4380238qcg.8.2011.01.05.14.55.39; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ivo.doko@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.52; Received: by mail-qw0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 4so16644216qwi.11 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.182.11 with SMTP id ca11mr13126119qcb.15.1294268139025; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.176.71 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:55:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201101051658.16043.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <201101051658.16043.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 23:55:38 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! From: Ivo Doko To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: ivo.doko@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ivo.doko@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ivo.doko@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=0016364ec8feabb6cc04992148be --0016364ec8feabb6cc04992148be Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 5 January 2011 22:58, Pierre Abbat wrote: > Esperanto has at least one word which proves that its words cannot be > unambiguously parsed... > There are multiple, but that is irrelevant. Like I said, Esperanto never even aimed to be fully unambiguous and as thousands of languages worldwide (Esperanto included, because it has native speakers) prove, a language doesn't *need* to be fully unambiguous to be a usable and working language. The main thing that Lojban lacks for being used as a global language is not > the precise definition of every corner case. It's vocabulary. I.e. it's not finished, which is what I said. ...its morphology is defined so as to prevent collisions like "avaro", it > takes > longer to invent vocabulary in Lojban. You can't take some Latinate term > that's commonly used in many languages, some of them unrelated to Latin, > and > expect to make a brivla out of it just by changing "-us" to "-o". You have > to > consider whether a lujvo would capture the meaning better, whether the > second > consonant is in a cluster, and whether the same word could mean something > totally different (such as "malpigi" which could be either an acerola fruit > or an insect's kidney). > Speaking of which, I think that, unfortunately, is the main flaw of lojban. I understand that it can't possibly hope to be literally unambiguous if its vocabulary doesn't operate like that, but that ensures that if people ever do start to use lojban for everyday communication and if lojban ever gets native speakers, its so praised unambiguity will very soon melt away. Vocabulary assimilation is unavoidable and you can't possibly expect every native speaker of lojban to know which new brivla will create an ambiguity, so native lojban speakers would naturally start to incorporate words from other languages in their vocabulary, those words would inevitably create ambiguities, and after a couple of decades its precious ambiguity would be nowhere. (And that's without even mentioning other ways in which a language evolves when it's used by people as their main language for everyday communication.) So... as far as I've understood it, this is how it goes: 1) Let's make lojban the world's official common language because it's completely logical and unambiguous. 2) lojban is made the world's official common language. 3) People use lojban every day to talk to each other. 4) As was the case with Esperanto, this eventually results in people having lojban as their native language, who proceed to use lojban as their main language for everyday communication. 5) This makes lojban evolve. 6) After a couple of decades, lojban is no longer unambiguous nor completely logical and as time goes by is more and more like languages which have naturally evolved among humans. Wait, so what was the initial reason to use lojban as the world's official common language? After all, lojban's unambiguity and logicality seems to be one of the main arguments for that, and yet if it did get chosen for that role it will have stopped being unambiguous and logical not long after its use became widespread. So if we're going to have an "ordinary" language as the world's official common language in the end anyway, why not chose one which is not unfinished? -- 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. --0016364ec8feabb6cc04992148be Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 5 January 2011 22:58, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu&g= t; wrote:
Esperanto has at least one word which proves that its words cannot be
unambiguously parsed...

There are multiple, but th= at is irrelevant. Like I said, Esperanto never even aimed to be fully unamb= iguous and as thousands of languages worldwide (Esperanto included, because= it has native speakers) prove, a language doesn't *need* to be fully u= nambiguous to be a usable and working language.


The main thing that Lojban lacks for being used as a global language is not=
the precise definition of every corner case. It's vocabulary.

I.e. it's not finished, which is what I said.
=A0
...its morphology is defined so as to prevent collisions like "avaro", i= t takes
longer to invent vocabulary in Lojban. You can't take some Latinate ter= m
that's commonly used in many languages, some of them unrelated to Latin= , and
expect to make a brivla out of it just by changing "-us" to "= ;-o". You have to
consider whether a lujvo would capture the meaning better, whether the seco= nd
consonant is in a cluster, and whether the same word could mean something totally different (such as "malpigi" which could be either an ace= rola fruit
or an insect's kidney).
=A0
Speaking= of which, I think that, unfortunately, is the main flaw of lojban. I under= stand that it can't possibly hope to be literally unambiguous if its vo= cabulary doesn't operate like that, but that ensures that if people eve= r do start to use lojban for everyday communication and if lojban ever gets= native speakers, its so praised unambiguity will very soon melt away. Voca= bulary assimilation is unavoidable and you can't possibly expect every = native speaker of lojban to know which new brivla will create an ambiguity,= so native lojban speakers would naturally start to incorporate words from = other languages in their vocabulary, those words would inevitably create am= biguities, and after a couple of decades its precious ambiguity would be no= where. (And that's without even mentioning other ways in which a langua= ge evolves when it's used by people as their main language for everyday= communication.)

So... as far as I've understood it, this is how it goes:

1) = Let's make lojban the world's official common language because it&#= 39;s completely logical and unambiguous.
2) lojban is made the world'= ;s official common language.
3) People use lojban every day to talk to each other.
4) As was the case= with Esperanto, this eventually results in people having lojban as their n= ative language, who proceed to use lojban as their main language for everyd= ay communication.
5) This makes lojban evolve.
6) After a couple of decades, lojban is no = longer unambiguous nor completely logical and as time goes by is more and m= ore like languages which have naturally evolved among humans.

Wait, = so what was the initial reason to use lojban as the world's official co= mmon language? After all, lojban's unambiguity and logicality seems to = be one of the main arguments for that, and yet if it did get chosen for tha= t role it will have stopped being unambiguous and logical not long after it= s use became widespread. So if we're going to have an "ordinary&qu= ot; language as the world's official common language in the end anyway,= why not chose one which is not unfinished?

--
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.
--0016364ec8feabb6cc04992148be--