Received: from [::1] (port=50636 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eV7Pz-0005ay-7M; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:02:39 -0800 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:42537) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eV7PS-0005Ye-Af for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:02:07 -0800 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id b141so4002775wme.1 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:02:06 -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=S2SDXX1x4rqDeAqd+3LNeoZyJFZwjdbZyeMMECJiQkY=; b=aNMNDhWlJePATimlT/HAIJNCDoJR79NkGZpfxTvD75AWHwBrpVq+mjwpdv3o6j9X5c jkcKfXCynAL7ohuJ5N05unxFTY4Tz2sqHS7mRcLl9wg+yGCYTT3DXKX00qhFDUx21DdS +HPyZgR39UMJKk8BzJWJtnAevOoTzw8xhzZ0ybBWrSGd0XYlm6YMGoHmqsTSYiq1CZKY G2VidFMy8SdbDL6+scN1piMOmCOLfgsoWs+oaQNsenMfuJQjPQufC+AAtqIz4FmGjN4h MKAl2Q+MqAAMMawksCwpP/kjK1VVONzj8vSc37Vefx24JeEHJ98kE6eAp1z3krfZzpzC 5pEQ== 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=S2SDXX1x4rqDeAqd+3LNeoZyJFZwjdbZyeMMECJiQkY=; b=iDiaWTVY6YIbnXmTJOebWRV0OLsgE610q/p53RAtuzz7N+kPJ6N5PXo70+k6aNy+mu uFVyFUrVCV+PCkv8BSw0Y/d6w4Zn1sH/JuEP8/1GGez9w1IadLnp65uvWc5MSV/4zFLF gw5nmeoB6TARGRlMPqT0GmKpBkYUuDBVgJbFnnGK7nQGMytML/ouEq5VYWftR+PGKA53 /OtuHvSCV8+lKwkjoUy+YqURueTQecNynA5xlduLAvjQTtr5S27W4X6vC/uEGv07RlPJ h8UsVkC+zsua+2NsrSjJvyNC3a0lyE/6nX7E5xAnz0RCrsTi6flrrm7NvMa+ExuqdWV3 oakw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKLKYOlbObkDc/3lo1zqbqHM7tn6tKdCmcxoCrsxojqCPYpD1P/ 7zHL+2m+Ss0rIMy+0SQl7TDnu8KenLaAa9ktGgKg X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos91zAn/c2F+Bs6Z1W6N7Yx0NQeiBgNnZhSnwjN4XQiUUdge6FVA8ssjAxE8HLo4MvhnAIiQsgtapOmJ1b/nJc= X-Received: by 10.80.214.139 with SMTP id r11mr48022882edi.17.1514602919623; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:01:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.173.219 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:01:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7074953.2veMK8YGUJ@caracal> <6c826210-9f71-1813-2957-7e5593ad18ed@lojban.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 06:01:18 +0300 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="===============1234858633576719036==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1234858633576719036== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045dad2cffff49056185f885" --f403045dad2cffff49056185f885 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-12-29 22:09 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > > 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. > You told it yourself: "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. > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --f403045dad2cffff49056185f885 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2017-12-29 22:09 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


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

I cannot see how even a = merely moderately careful reading of my message could lead you to impute th= is view to me.

You told it your= self:=C2=A0

"Perhaps if LLG shared the views = I've expressed above, then LLG could continue to promote both Lojban (f= or 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 an outcome."



--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 t= herefore 3. is not proved/shown to do 1. ?

2017-12-29 21:55 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&= gt;:
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.

On 29 Dec 2017 16:19, "Curtis Fra= nks" <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 overall purpose and = general conceptual orientation of this meeting, so explication should be pr= ovided.

I would also like to h= ave, listed here, all of the generic defining qualities of a logical langua= ge (not just examples of such) and explanation of how Lojban fails to satis= fy that or those which it does.

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

2017-12-29 18:29 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <a= nd.rosta@gmail.com>:

=
On 26 Dec 2017 19:36, "Bob LeChev= alier" <lojb= ab@lojban.org> wrote:
&= gt; The bylaws were formulated to broadly cover a variety of forms of resea= rch into logical languages, and there has always been the possibility of co= nducting 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 t= he use of Lojban.

That statement is patently fal= se and wilfully amnesiac.

=
I was for many years the most= vocal proponent of the LLG's mission to explore logical language, as o= pposed 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 l= ogical language, versus promoting Lojban) are in fact antithetical; within = LLG and the Lojban community, a victory for the one goal can be achieved on= ly through the defeat of the other; but success in the goal of promoting Lo= jban can be achieved only within LLG and the Lojban community, whereas succ= ess in the goal of promoting logical language can be achieved outside it; m= any promoters of Lojban (as opposed to logical language) have invested much= of their life's work in the enterprise, and pursuing the failure of an= other's life's work should be avoided where possible; therefore LLG= and the Lojban community should be left to promote (conservative) Lojban u= nopposed (and therefore must not be required to promote logical language).<= /div>

>=C2=A0 Indeed, there is a strong antipathy to= other "logical languages", which I admit to sharing; I'm sim= ply not interested, and never have been - languages are too hard for me to = learn, and IMHO too difficult to properly "invent" with the compl= ete full documentation needed for new people to learn and use them.=C2=A0 S= o 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 lang= uage, for all that it might falsely advertise itself as such.=C2=A0

The antipathy Lojbab describes exists because Lojban seeks to = accrue users and promotes itself by falsely claiming to be a logical langua= ge. Any logical language is therefore a rival to Lojban. And Lojban's f= alse claim to be a logical language, coupled with its comparative fame, is = an obstacle to -- a distraction from -- the promotion of logical language.<= /div>




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.

Again, patent bullshit.=C2=A0


Whi= le I would be only too delighted for the LLG to promote the purposes descri= bed in the Bylaws, that would entail deprecating Lojban in its baselined an= d current forms. Given that LLG recruits from the Lojban community rather t= han from the logical language community, it is obviously and not unreasonab= ly the case that the large majority of LLG members prioritize the promotion= of Lojban over the promotion of the purposes described in the Bylaws.=C2= =A0

--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@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


--f403045dad2cffff49056185f885-- --===============1234858633576719036== 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 --===============1234858633576719036==--