Received: from localhost ([::1]:48766 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eV02p-0001ds-KW; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:10:15 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:34389) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eV02J-0001bm-3u for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:09:44 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y82so6296292wmg.1 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:09:42 -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=cxfcEQzlFLBxsrop9IR3r/B+08OLNpr429ycPrFs8t4=; b=aEdTTCkI2NE0nm8WwMbMMJdZFkE2U29OMYmuiNJUsAKzT/EZfWm1T/hmtlMNAo1RFR y2+eJ1WTY28+SA9/AufwxRhVhoSqpWyOITl7veKFzCNopBcNOFETWoJD0IBW0NtmOk4F 4oD2RrQBXM7I3BAewXShGd1Hz8aVBPLVr57W7FmPZxAGUteqklQUap3RM3Cu2MueT+cb 68MzPwB01EqrrUyPlqXuMzz02l7ZA8bbgcTJ4UDorqJA/nxtyANevuGgoszeFMDHs0s8 AuQtjSRaSJ7M6iVXO7jHSrpui4Adhm5L/43YOzsjCIwKb+/Ipt4FT3BxsB4TWED/IG1e zpqg== 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=cxfcEQzlFLBxsrop9IR3r/B+08OLNpr429ycPrFs8t4=; b=H9G3wqQ3TwEx0hp1rxh/xB3S7aHK1pkmLvbDQ8EF4dHUKxLrkiyKiIsBZzgvPUB6gt 39WMo9lJAKrIvDoOmKKtZ0SkgHnjHUzrciuTmQ4eiduM0+bQaHMzbw1Q3NkisonATWMU v2edZGzx9mdJdU57xAvoNTN7FAlj1bvEF/P8Bz8C4v4S+Ww08UKtD25jDMX762Y6GBZv D3Coj0RMGpFX3Nao3gFm6UAKb8t1IxJJfFM77VymrDNg2KSYQPf2pYSW7mYtvSZbslio uYz2UUz8SSDgvN0cbngmUjLVgacnt84Fd7gTVjc5l2O8MPfBw3zW422BAyCe8UV6ULf0 otXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKo2zVdzUmI3NEXksE3vyW2BKsnyjKu1t/712Yj2WAewFAAgvLt T1U5addfAuNFXuiCa1dFIxiqyjCjTHOmsk/7PKw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot7JwnnhHviaewZJ1/2C7KIoxDV6PP041xxAExdpLmTdwNag5ygmQ5sFSc2evHAih4HjGUWpIktCbto1EFsaZc= X-Received: by 10.28.109.139 with SMTP id b11mr27752871wmi.85.1514574576007; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:09:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.135.147 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:09:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.135.147 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:09:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: And Rosta Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:09:34 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 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="===============8413364180926278843==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8413364180926278843== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146793896c08205617f5fb7" --001a1146793896c08205617f5fb7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 29 Dec 2017 19:01, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: So according to you there is a non-existent logical language. Okay, what's next? LLG should support it but not Lojban? I cannot see how even a merely moderately careful reading of my message could lead you to impute this view to me. --And. But why? What says that LLG should support only a language that 1. does some encoding of predicate-argument structure that 2. does not exist and therefore 3. is not proved/shown to do 1. ? 2017-12-29 21:55 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --001a1146793896c08205617f5fb7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 29 Dec 2017 19:01, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:=
So accor= ding to you there is a non-existent logical language. Okay, what's next= ? LLG should support it but not Lojban?

I cannot see how even a mer= ely moderately careful reading of my message could lead you to impute this = view to me.

--And.
=


<= br>
But why? What says that LLG= should support only a language that 1. does some encoding of predicate-arg= ument structure that 2. does not exist and therefore 3. is not proved/shown= to do 1. ?

=
2017-12-29 21:55 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.r= osta@gmail.com>:
Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically ex= pressible) 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 f= orm and from phonological form to PAS.)

The Lojban baseline is not sufficient to unambiguously go f= rom phonological form to PAS. Probably if xorxes and selpa'i had been g= iven 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 docu= ment a preexisting design, as John Cowan was constrained to do), the defici= ency could have been remedied to a large extent, but the more thorough the = remedy the more extensive the changes necessary (e.g. excising much grammat= ical complexity). Lojban can satisfy the PAS to phonological form direction= only by the trivial means of having a crude method of lexicalizing standar= d predicate logic notation.=C2=A0

Creating a loglang is trivially simple, even though Lojban isn= 9;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 a= n extraordinarily bad loglang and it would be an injury to the world if con= servative 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 Lojba= b that Lojban should be defined purely through the usage of speakers who vi= ew CLL as holy writ; to continue to advertise it as a logical language woul= d be dishonest, but to advertise it as the realization of Brown's whorf= ian experiment would be quite just (notwithstanding that qua experiment it = was doomed to fail). Even though Lojban is not a loglang, it is still megag= eeky, picturesquely baroque and very sui generis and should continue to att= ract 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, rath= er than as a logical language) and, in keeping with the Bylaws, the develop= ment of ergonomic loglangs.=C2=A0 I'd be very happy with such an outcom= e.

--And.
<= div>

On 29 Dec 2017 16= :19, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that this has been covered in some detail e= lsewhere, but it is germane to this discussion and I opine that this discus= sion is still relevant to the overall purpose and general conceptual orient= ation 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 D= ec 29, 2017 11:14, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> w= rote:
And, what IS a logical language? Show us one.

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


On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChevalier" <= ;lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> The bylaws = were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of research into logica= l languages, and there has always been the possibility of conducting or sup= porting 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 Lojba= n.

That statement is patently false and wilfully= amnesiac.

I was for many years the most vocal proponen= t of the LLG's mission to explore logical language, as opposed to the m= ission to promote Lojban. As a member of LLG and the Lojban community I eve= ntually changed my position, but this was because it became increasingly ev= ident to me that the two goals (of exploring and promoting logical language= , versus promoting Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within LLG and the Loj= ban 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 ach= ieved only within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas success in the goal= of promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; many promoters o= f Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much of their life&= #39;s work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of another's lif= e's work should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG and the Lojban= community should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban unopposed (and t= herefore must not be required to promote logical language).

>=C2=A0 Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to other "lo= gical languages", which I admit to sharing; I'm simply not interes= ted, and never have been - languages are too hard for me to learn, and IMHO= too difficult to properly "invent" with the complete full docume= ntation needed for new people to learn and use them.=C2=A0 So I hope selpa&= #39;i will forgive me if I don't look at his own efforts at a new "= ;logical language".

<= /div>
This is all true, excep= t that the Lojban that Lojbab endorses is not a logical language, for all t= hat it might falsely advertise itself as such.=C2=A0

Th= e antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to accrue users an= d 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 b= e 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.




--And.

_______________________________________________
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@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


--001a1146793896c08205617f5fb7-- --===============8413364180926278843== 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 --===============8413364180926278843==--