From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDWxZTpBBoEmw_kMg@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 18:03:15 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PafC4-0000Ea-AB; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:15 -0800 Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17sf15026215gwj.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:06 -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=pbBxHqRssP2pH6B4gcQMTes6EIKSCJmuSTH6UGMsI8Y=; b=AflbBDz1ArAu5WdDW4PCJRFqILeTOuJVM/nTYXTxyRTO5GzpulEElbfScdLYOA3BO4 pvrLCATvJrqWEwuCy+uJT+G0PvzwSOlorGrlc7NHrqHd3kzOBceiQUVNaYdBqcmm/kNL bl7ptIua0Iq4C8VlyhDs22y7U2RJ7gFYn87LA= 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=H44aM3OzPXf9HmsDbfYn3eYrwulbZTktd4rLnasmv+EOxWsj7dusWrnF4IKAUT9b8F sUZpMCMYMa6tQd2hO8hFG11RzoRZnK11wgNuS1hc/KBb5/FaTOjjMESrflGYlPxGW5As unoaqy8tF7babW+KLdW7Nx5/hQ63ZJ8CQ/Xc4= Received: by 10.151.62.20 with SMTP id p20mr1651040ybk.20.1294279382122; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:02 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.78.146 with SMTP id l18ls2068782ibk.1.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.172.146 with SMTP id l18mr8860249ibz.2.1294279381515; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.172.146 with SMTP id l18mr8860248ibz.2.1294279381466; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com (mail-iy0-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id cu19si5315793ibb.1.2011.01.05.18.03.00; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.174; Received: by iyi12 with SMTP id 12so14475847iyi.19 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.145.209 with SMTP id e17mr7831140ibv.43.1294279379506; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.140 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:02:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:02:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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=0016e64754a2a7d421049923e65a --0016e64754a2a7d421049923e65a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 6 January 2011 02:42, Jonathan Jones wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Ivo Doko wrote: >> >>> On 6 January 2011 01:40, Luke Bergen wrote: >>> >>>> actually I read it the same way. >>>> >>>> Esperanto is X, Y, and Z. lojban is far from being [that] at the >>>> moment. >>>> =3D >>>> lojban is far from X, Y, AND Z. >>>> =3D >>>> lojban is far from X AND lojban is far from Y AND lojban is far from Z= . >>>> >>>> If that's not what you meant to communicate maybe you should try sayin= g >>>> it in lojban next time ;) >>>> >>> >>> Wow, you guys need to learn your logic. Let's do it properly: >>> >>> A =3D "lojban is fully defined." >>> B =3D "lojban is complete." >>> C =3D "lojban is a functioning language." >>> >>> "lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" can = be >>> written as: >>> >> >> .i la.lojban. na mulno smugau je mulno je tolpo'u bangu >> jboski parse >> >> >>> =C2=AC(A =E2=88=A7 B =E2=88=A7 C) >>> >>> which is equivalent to: >>> >>> =C2=ACA =E2=88=A8 =C2=ACB =E2=88=A8 =C2=ACC >>> >>> which is: >>> >>> "lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is n= ot >>> a functioning language." >>> >> >> .i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi'a na tolpo'u bangu >> jboski parse >> >> Like I said, we tend to think Lojbanically about logic. Notice how the t= wo >> sentences, translated into Lojban, mean entirely different things. > > > There's no "lojbanic" thinking about logic - there's logic and not logic. > If the two sentences parse differently you've either mistranslated them o= r > lojban is not logical. Yeah, I'll presume the former. Wrong on both counts. Where: A =3D "lojban is fully defined." B =3D "lojban is complete." C =3D "lojban is a functioning language." "lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" =3D "loj= ban is not A, B, and C." =3D "lojban is not (A, B, and C)." =3D {.i la.lojban. = na mulno smugau je mulno je tolpo'u bangu} "lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is not a functioning language." =3D "lojban is (not A) or (not B) or (not C)." =3D {= .i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi'a na tolpo'u bangu} --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu d= o zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=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. --0016e64754a2a7d421049923e65a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ivo Doko= <ivo.doko@gmail= .com> wrote:
On 6 January 2011 02:42, Jonat= han Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 January 2011 01:40, Luke Bergen <= lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
actually I read it the same way.

Esperanto is X, Y, and = Z. =C2=A0lojban is far from being [that] at the moment.
=3D
=
lojban is far from X, Y, AND Z.
=3D
lojban is far = from X AND lojban is far from Y AND lojban is far from Z.

If that's not what you meant to communicate maybe y= ou should try saying it in lojban next time ;)

Wow, you guys need to learn your logic. Let's do it properly:

A =3D "lojban is fully defined."
B =3D "lojban is complet= e."
C =3D "lojban is a functioning language."

&quo= t;lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" ca= n be written as:

.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau je mu= lno je tolpo'u bangu
jboski parse
=C2=A0
=
=C2=AC(A =E2=88=A7 B =E2=88=A7 C)

which is equivalent to:

=C2= =ACA =E2=88=A8 =C2=ACB =E2=88=A8 =C2=ACC

which is:

"lojb= an is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is not a func= tioning language."

.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi'a na= tolpo'u bangu
jboski parse

Like I said, we tend to think Lojbanically about logic. Notice how the = two sentences, translated into Lojban, mean entirely different things.

There's no "lojbanic" thinking about = logic - there's logic and not logic. If the two sentences parse differe= ntly you've either mistranslated them or lojban is not logical. Yeah, I= 'll presume the former.

Wrong on both counts.

Where:
A =3D "lojban is fully= defined."
B =3D "lojban is complete."
C =3D "loj= ban is a functioning language."

"lojban is not a fully def= ined, complete and functioning language" =3D "lojban is not A, B,= and C." =3D "lojban is not (A, B, and C)." =3D {.i la.lojba= n. na mulno smugau je mulno je tolpo'u bangu}

"lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban= is not a functioning language." =3D "lojban is (not A) or (not B= ) or (not C)." =3D {.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi= 'a na tolpo'u bangu}

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cm= ima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(C= ome to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
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.
--0016e64754a2a7d421049923e65a--