From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDH7ZPwBBoEOarCHA@googlegroups.com Fri Jun 24 13:43:01 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QaDDN-0006Cf-N3; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:43:00 -0700 Received: by ywt32 with SMTP id 32sf3820828ywt.16 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf :x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:message-id:x-ymail-osg :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=7Iv68MygeDlHirVB66g4q7uMwcbroe/l/06jttAdlXo=; b=v2lw5mJKzlQtcYUmmJX8NHBshMz3NX+pStqDkeLOGBmcr+y9nRijlhD1MmwvyVQw/x WSBJmy7Mfqq6sf4xEk7WEATVk8EZ07cjejDeLZZdbIyigeGMKXOWN7D6IxAH6Nb5It7e rBLh8IJOXx+8hW9kNpVN29x/0r+M9Az6og1bY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=XaoPrgxiBnz0MFVMAHDp0Sr44IMlxoINY4OhXdY6fmR1Pkl5O7PHY0C15/EhlPWZvy zXJuD9k4KI1t5Xt5Saxgwodz/gyRQkAlWE4yHJBxx4I5vEFVQqYxokjZ85PiDmV1ohxW punHYDTRFOdAdlNoYvG2wJZlO0euM20bBVtIc= Received: by 10.91.68.7 with SMTP id v7mr150301agk.46.1308948167718; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.144.7 with SMTP id w7ls996163agn.1.gmail; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.109.171 with SMTP id s31mr1649460yhg.22.1308948166253; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.109.171 with SMTP id s31mr1649459yhg.22.1308948166233; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm20.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm20.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.221]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id t44si2031177yhm.7.2011.06.24.13.42.45; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.221 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.221; Received: from [66.94.237.201] by nm20.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2011 20:42:44 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.97] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2011 20:42:44 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1002.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2011 20:42:44 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 946535.19921.bm@omp1002.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 89716 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Jun 2011 20:42:44 -0000 Message-ID: <722244.87894.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: auyKNCkVM1mlYs.cqL61eojg8t_nD6_pTRD2W.o5oaW3s2J znGQmLufo7oWetphBtqZO_XgjPvEgP6HhkhM2uZsLZY70SuyB2nnAYHVnJyu YG.TPCuxgz3FkH5Mup7DzMf07i9bGfmXeid0qn.AJEG6zqTQ7BQyjOhnSAv7 2S9n2eC4sJLi_Vg4asV1Wv74XnysAo0OAm_DUVbUtqp73wbBF3MmCoQR0r7V 0GzQ6FNN0eLdSUYRACACN.BylVbnAvVkYlVn0NtXbe3BYzJKmXz.PqcGPwjK jkmll7FerpCnpelfdXavEJbqyoX0iA.k3fL9i5VicMFcv9.8yw_UWiyqudN0 sysptBUUAKyI5lzMK9zTKpQfxc37L67CMUu1No.kxZJmCZ8oWD0lTC..9VDV _lwuOGhk524vKtroboAUTfz17VCnmAT8cLPWhd8W5F1yTqVxFDRiM4hHTX.I UDOy61dRzVizDUwp.jzz5DY1fOmDDu16VhrJKMBX.YA-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:44 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.304355 References: <18295425.2260.1308825326908.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqie9> <4E04C028.9050703@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:42:44 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] How it should have been. And how it could be. To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <4E04C028.9050703@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.221 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Oh, I think there is a lot to save, if you are building a logical language, though I would recommend going back to the actual logic language and move from that more carefully. The weird scheme for getting primitives would surely go this time around -- it takes a lot of time and is of at best doubted utility. Then the movement from sentential connectives to connective between subsentential parts has to be rethought to prevent at least some of the dubplication. and the question of scopes need another look. After that, the frills can go just about any which way. Of course, if you want to create a language for Loglan's original purpose, to test SWH, Loglan/Lojban was a nonstarter from the get-go when else could it have been a nonstarter?) since it is the most SAE language in existence. So, in this case, yes we would have to start from scratch (but don't bother until you have actually formulated a meaningful and testable version of SWH, something that has not been achieved in 80-odd years). ----- Original Message ---- From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, June 24, 2011 11:49:44 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] How it should have been. And how it could be. Muhammad Nael, On 23/06/2011 11:35: > I'm very much interested in the language but more so in its idea, I'm > promoting a custom -not yet existing- form of it; so, my /looooong/ > list of questions is: For all the gurus and regular Lojbanists out > there, imagine you're back where it all started, but with your > current experience, how would you like Lojban to be? Or, imagine that > you're using the current Lojban as a template for creating the > perfect logical language (as close to that), how would you want it > look like say, in year 2090? or a bit sooner if that's too far. What > decisions do you know were made in the very initial years of Lojban > that you wish weren't? is there any that you wish were /made/? and > why? If possible give examples. - the change should be enriching > Lojban's efficiency, making it easier to learn and moving it a step > closer to being a complete language. > > I'll wait for replies, although I may not be able to make a reply myself today. Whether starting from now, or if starting in 1960 but with the benefit of hindsight, the hypothetical neo-Lojban should start completely from scratch, preserving nothing of current Lojban (-- because everything in current Lojban could be drastically improved upon), but of course learning immensely from it -- which isn't an answer that is going to help you much with your short story. There is no community actively discussing a Neo-Lojban, but if there were, I imagine engelang@yahoogroups.com would be the least unsuitable forum for it. --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. -- 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.