From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
Message-ID: <dbf42712-41f4-f461-36ae-360ceb1d2e94@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:30:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
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: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8986065544973946497=="
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8986065544973946497==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------2A4BB18C7EF037B1A288B391"
Content-Language: en-US

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2A4BB18C7EF037B1A288B391
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

┌────────────────┐
│ Solpahi wrote: │
├────────────────┘
│
│ Curtis moved the following:
│ >/I move: /│ >/The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any 
other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of 
logical language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional 
framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. 
linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument 
structure (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. 
loglang) is one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally 
encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 
'monoparsing' property. The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both 
from PAS to phonological form and from phonological form to PAS.) /│
│ Seconded.
│
│ >/Motion 2. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal 
goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical 
language) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG. /│ >//│ >//│ >/I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my 
immediately previous motion in this message. /│
│ Seconded.
│
│ >/Motion 3. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal 
goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a logical language. /│ >//│ >//│ >/I likewise so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous 
two motions in this message. /│ >//│
│ Seconded.
│
│ My second does not include Curtis' amendment, because I consider the
│ definition of loglanghood given by And adequate as is. A language that
│ does not fulfill those (fundamental) requirements is not a logical
│ language ("loglang").
│
│ ~~~mi'e la selpa'i
│
└────────────────┘

I'm not certain that everything in a loglang must have a representation in
the logical form, specifically things like information structure markers
(e.g. {ba'e}, {kau}) and possibly some attitudinals or discursives.

Maybe we should allow some extralogical information to be lost in a
conversion from the phonological from to PAS and then back to the
phonological form.

But maybe even information structure markers could be expressed in the PAS,
in the form of a separate proposition like "I emphasize the word X in my
previous utterance". But just for prudence's sake, I wouldn't yet exclude
extralogical markers from the definition of a loglang.

Nevertheless, Curtis' wording does not seem to entail such an exclusion,
as it doesn't say that conversions back and from the phonological from
must yield exactly the same result.

Note: You only seconded the motion but did not yet approve of it formally,
if I'm not mistaken.

—Ilmen.


--------------2A4BB18C7EF037B1A288B391
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <pre>
┌────────────────┐
│ Solpahi wrote: │
├────────────────┘
│
│ Curtis moved the following:
│ &gt;<i> I move:
</i>│ &gt;<i> The LLG shall adopt, as a principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals), the intention of exploration and promotion of logical language(s) in general, subject to the following definitional framework and description: Presupposing that everything effable (i.e. linguistically expressible) can be represented as a predicate-argument structure (PAS), a logical language (in the technical sense, i.e. loglang) is one that (syntactically-)unambiguously bidirectionally encodes an unlimited number of PASs. (Also known by some as the 'monoparsing' property. The relevant bidirectionality is conversion both from PAS to phonological form and from phonological form to PAS.)
</i>│ 
│ Seconded.
│ 
│ &gt;<i>     Motion 2. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is promotion of Lojban (regardless of its status as a logical language) as defined by documents endorsed by the LLG.
</i>│ &gt;<i> 
</i>│ &gt;<i> 
</i>│ &gt;<i> I likewise (same wording) so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous motion in this message.
</i>│ 
│ Seconded.
│ 
│ &gt;<i>     Motion 3. A principal goal of the LLG (coequal with any other principal goals) is creation of a Lojban derivative that is a logical language. 
</i>│ &gt;<i> 
</i>│ &gt;<i> 
</i>│ &gt;<i> I likewise so move, with terms as described in my immediately previous two motions in this message.
</i>│ &gt;<i> 
</i>│ 
│ Seconded.
│ 
│ My second does not include Curtis' amendment, because I consider the 
│ definition of loglanghood given by And adequate as is. A language that 
│ does not fulfill those (fundamental) requirements is not a logical 
│ language ("loglang").
│ 
│ ~~~mi'e la selpa'i
│ 
└────────────────┘

I'm not certain that everything in a loglang must have a representation in
the logical form, specifically things like information structure markers
(e.g. {ba'e}, {kau}) and possibly some attitudinals or discursives.

Maybe we should allow some extralogical information to be lost in a
conversion from the phonological from to PAS and then back to the
phonological form.

But maybe even information structure markers could be expressed in the PAS,
in the form of a separate proposition like "I emphasize the word X in my
previous utterance". But just for prudence's sake, I wouldn't yet exclude
extralogical markers from the definition of a loglang.

Nevertheless, Curtis' wording does not seem to entail such an exclusion,
as it doesn't say that conversions back and from the phonological from
must yield exactly the same result.

Note: You only seconded the motion but did not yet approve of it formally,
if I'm not mistaken.

—Ilmen.


</pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------2A4BB18C7EF037B1A288B391--


--===============8986065544973946497==
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

--===============8986065544973946497==--