Received: from localhost ([::1]:47702 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUzom-0000dr-2H; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:55:44 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:43027) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eUzoF-0000bj-PM for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:55:12 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id n138so49555136wmg.2 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:55:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7WYZ+mAwoaAUTO+YF0Ci4tepC8B1gH68rwthbyrOXV0=; b=P+hBm/zP+PQ97sk6b35HXVCFjbrn5WUBDOjTTG0TG6CrAWDOGB21UYXpHICglN5R2c FXr9NikaftVcix7ecMxX+p6EoDy+hTWnmVXH6XuuSLQyhddlu5tcvcrdFfqShOwqR39q N2ARELlbloGzrYvuzugrgIwFCre+Dg33vEmLc38DcsbiOWsQ4zCv0jLM4JOTjjOJYkuo 6j35IGLR8+E3P55sCjbXuBpW69pLfoWWmEd1Nlk75KSjA98jTQM0b+P4dZDc/VeknJKX C9ghEIwYGHX/z2XrcJSSbJIROtBukHR40ZhpdQUDBvX/KNDOb9EXiSfW90fRZMB+viRi 0svw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=7WYZ+mAwoaAUTO+YF0Ci4tepC8B1gH68rwthbyrOXV0=; b=TRDU3AkkmtONtX3YzuwY0aYrMwFKtfvocLN+VahM6ywQ6lRzQwz4lvq2a/ieNUk/aP BJWsn0Oyvd0JPJCUsS6PAcUKaBFWoHJ9CTlx6Cd6W6mJCrSJJrU2vDMZIRZIy0V9v6GJ CjlGyMdtmzXfZqdqPlh8VfRtEvhiMSE26R6Sna2cnsoMTa7omOALmMU9CYL6Hs8FkQhg L6Z0+ua/zixsBRAd7tKCmlCX9q2gzliZ2M60FCYN021O/VMZZmYcORO0hymsXWDdHsmJ /KalEuobJEbwvmIBL5ZkUyRACPp2nA+EeyIyjLyDqY5z/xnkG6c1qQKbavdrymjHoxyU r79w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK5+P+RfK/sABsl1nkIXoIxENx//d34/N63QsZ7j+EfF/1uNORb E6FXLy3dg99Dr1+MzAyJqgBytHVHLmSBWjnS5x8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos2uR20Xq8kLxWzXaJ3VkWq1xG03UFijYhgrC774zHEQW0iDrJJ/RoiD2vTTd/u54JMFhuwLa53a8aaYydGFgs= X-Received: by 10.28.224.4 with SMTP id x4mr27931161wmg.118.1514573704683; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:55:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.135.147 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.135.147 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:55:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: And Rosta Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:55:03 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6245873141193365657==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6245873141193365657== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b14a2a7667905617f2bf9" --001a114b14a2a7667905617f2bf9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate--argument structure, a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (What Pycyn terms 'monoparsing'. The bidirectionality is going from PAS to phonological form and from phonological form to PAS.) The Lojban baseline is not sufficient to unambiguously go from phonological form to PAS. Probably if xorxes and selpa'i had been given carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best judgement (i.e. changing the design as they saw fit, rather than merely trying to document a preexisting design, as John Cowan was constrained to do), the deficiency could have been remedied to a large extent, but the more thorough the remedy the more extensive the changes necessary (e.g. excising much grammatical complexity). Lojban can satisfy the PAS to phonological form direction only by the trivial means of having a crude method of lexicalizing standard predicate logic notation. Creating a loglang is trivially simple, even though Lojban isn't one. The very difficult (and perhaps insuperable?) challenge of loglang design is to make one that is ergonomic. As far as ergonomy of design goes, Lojban is an utter trainwreck, so even if you got xorxes and selpa'i to patch it up (rather than redesign it into Xorban or Toaq), it would be an extraordinarily bad loglang and it would be an injury to the world if conservative adherence to so bad a loglang were to inhibit the search for, and adherence to, better ones. As far as the future of Lojban and LLG goes, I tend to agree with Lojbab that Lojban should be defined purely through the usage of speakers who view CLL as holy writ; to continue to advertise it as a logical language would be dishonest, but to advertise it as the realization of Brown's whorfian experiment would be quite just (notwithstanding that qua experiment it was doomed to fail). Even though Lojban is not a loglang, it is still megageeky, picturesquely baroque and very sui generis and should continue to attract a user community of the suitably quixotic. Perhaps if LLG shared the views I've expressed above, then LLG could continue to promote both Lojban (for what it is, rather than as a logical language) and, in keeping with the Bylaws, the development of ergonomic loglangs. I'd be very happy with such an outcome. --And. On 29 Dec 2017 16:19, "Curtis Franks" wrote: I think that this has been covered in some detail elsewhere, but it is germane to this discussion and I opine that this discussion is still relevant to the overall purpose and general conceptual orientation of this meeting, so explication should be provided. I would also like to have, listed here, all of the generic defining qualities of a logical language (not just examples of such) and explanation of how Lojban fails to satisfy that or those which it does. On Dec 29, 2017 11:14, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > And, what IS a logical language? Show us one. > > 2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > >> >> >> On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: >> > The bylaws were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of >> research into logical languages, and there has always been the possibility >> of conducting or supporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has >> been interested in such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and >> studying the use of Lojban. >> >> That statement is patently false and wilfully amnesiac. >> >> I was for many years the most vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to >> explore logical language, as opposed to the mission to promote Lojban. As a >> member of LLG and the Lojban community I eventually changed my position, >> but this was because it became increasingly evident to me that the two >> goals (of exploring and promoting logical language, versus promoting >> Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lojban community, a >> victory for the one goal can be achieved only through the defeat of the >> other; but success in the goal of promoting Lojban can be achieved only >> within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal of >> promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters of >> Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life's >> work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's life's work >> should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban community >> should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and therefore >> must not be required to promote logical language). >> >> > Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "logical languages", >> which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interested, and never have been - >> languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly >> "invent" with the complete full documentation needed for new people to >> learn and use them. So I hope selpa'i will forgive me if I don't look at >> his own efforts at a new "logical language". >> >> This is all true, except that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a >> logical language, for all that it might falsely advertise itself as such. >> >> The antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue >> users and promotes itself by falsely claiming to be a logical language. Any >> logical language is therefore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim >> to be a logical language, coupled with its comparative fame, is an obstacle >> to -- a distraction from -- the promotion of logical language. >> >> >> >> >> So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but >> until then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote >> the purposes described in the Bylaws. >> >> >> Again, patent bullshit. >> >> >> While I would be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes >> described in the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its >> baselined and current forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban >> community rather than from the logical language community, it is obviously >> and not unreasonably the case that the large majority of LLG members >> prioritize the promotion of Lojban over the promotion of the purposes >> described in the Bylaws. >> >> --And. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --001a114b14a2a7667905617f2bf9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguisti= cally expressible) can be represented as a predicate--argument structure, a= logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that unambi= guously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (What Pycyn te= rms 'monoparsing'. The bidirectionality is going from PAS to phonol= ogical form and from phonological form to PAS.)

=
The Lojban baseline is not sufficient to unambiguou= sly go from phonological form to PAS. Probably if xorxes and selpa'i ha= d been given carte blanche to write CLL 2.0 according to their own best jud= gement (i.e. changing the design as they saw fit, rather than merely trying= to document a preexisting design, as John Cowan was constrained to do), th= e deficiency could have been remedied to a large extent, but the more thoro= ugh the remedy the more extensive the changes necessary (e.g. excising much= grammatical complexity). Lojban can satisfy the PAS to phonological form d= irection only by the trivial means of having a crude method of lexicalizing= standard predicate logic notation.=C2=A0

=
Creating a loglang is trivially simple, even though Lojba= n isn't one. The very difficult (and perhaps insuperable?) challenge of= loglang design is to make one that is ergonomic. As far as ergonomy of des= ign goes, Lojban is an utter trainwreck, so even if you got xorxes and selp= a'i to patch it up (rather than redesign it into Xorban or Toaq), it wo= uld be an extraordinarily bad loglang and it would be an injury to the worl= d if conservative adherence to so bad a loglang were to inhibit the search = for, and adherence to, better ones.

As far as the future of Lojban and LLG goes, I tend to agree wi= th Lojbab that Lojban should be defined purely through the usage of speaker= s who view CLL as holy writ; to continue to advertise it as a logical langu= age would be dishonest, but to advertise it as the realization of Brown'= ;s whorfian experiment would be quite just (notwithstanding that qua experi= ment it was doomed to fail). Even though Lojban is not a loglang, it is sti= ll megageeky, picturesquely baroque and very sui generis and should continu= e to attract a user community of the suitably quixotic.

Perhaps if LLG shared the views I've ex= pressed above, then LLG could continue to promote both Lojban (for what it = is, rather than as a logical language) and, in keeping with the Bylaws, the= development of ergonomic loglangs.=C2=A0 I'd be very happy with such a= n outcome.

--And.
<= div dir=3D"auto">

On 29 Dec 2017 16:19, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:=
I think= that this has been covered in some detail elsewhere, but it is germane to = this discussion and I opine that this discussion is still relevant to the o= verall purpose and general conceptual orientation of this meeting, so expli= cation should be provided.

I w= ould also like to have, listed here, all of the generic defining qualities = of a logical language (not just examples of such) and explanation of how Lo= jban fails to satisfy that or those which it does.

On = Dec 29, 2017 11:14, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> = wrote:
And, what IS a logical language? Show us one.

2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00 And Rosta = <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
<= div dir=3D"auto">

On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" &l= t;lojbab@lojban.org<= /a>> wrote:
> The bylaws= were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of research into logic= al languages, and there has always been the possibility of conducting or su= pporting such research. But to put it simply, no one has been interested in= such research EXCEPT in the form of promoting and studying the use of Lojb= an.


I was for many years the most vocal propone= nt of the LLG's mission to explore logical language, as opposed to the = mission to promote Lojban. As a member of LLG and the Lojban community I ev= entually changed my position, but this was because it became increasingly e= vident to me that the two goals (of exploring and promoting logical languag= e, versus promoting Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Lo= jban community, a victory for the one goal can be achieved only through the= defeat of the other; but success in the goal of promoting Lojban can be ac= hieved only within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goa= l of promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters = of Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life= 's work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's li= fe's work should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojba= n community should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and = therefore must not be required to promote logical language).

>=C2=A0 Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "l= ogical languages", which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not intere= sted, and never have been - languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMH= O too difficult to properly "invent" with the complete full docum= entation needed for new people to learn and use them.=C2=A0 So I hope selpa= 'i will forgive me if I don't look at his own efforts at a new &quo= t;logical language".

=
This is all true, exce= pt that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a logical language, for all = that it might falsely advertise itself as such.=C2=A0

T= he antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue users a= nd promotes itself by falsely claiming to be a logical language. Any logica= l language is therefore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's false claim to = be a logical language, coupled with its comparative fame, is an obstacle to= -- a distraction from -- the promotion of logical language.




So LLG can adopt such research, if some LLG members want to do so, but unti= l then LLG considers supporting Lojban to be the best way to promote the pu= rposes described in the Bylaws.




--An= d.

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


--001a114b14a2a7667905617f2bf9-- --===============6245873141193365657== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============6245873141193365657==--