Received: from localhost ([::1]:59198 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYQv9-0006yw-4r; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:28:31 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.161.178]:41690) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eYQuc-0006xl-Is for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:27:59 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id f1so3933666ywd.8 for ; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:27:58 -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=ZgSf2GICR6CVXEiynAYAAIMxx1ZVMxdikwSkaRATOd4=; b=BYODfXPhg2LDV/thZmBFopSb4snmmaJ21EyEz3skqsVa4yeRKqDacRV/0mWk8szC0W Cqb9LC2WJ5BC15SQJqv1WkhPh3Cvggr4XbpNhEdU/Lkdq2q6uLSaFI1QCv/7FNVaUlr0 mkJAN/0+nb9/AkpPDSgmSgaVBW+gtG+2B6yoKYfm+gLrvCLUm2Weh2KqbRQf8AwPzKZf cMo25OCqmkVKo+mAPG8UdXpaJAV/AfglFjHbtlp8uRDcsvyJsfiLNzhKSH4OnLKYCBUF 13PCzFPw9QVNQncVPrhpF4qGZvmPGh7r399LReFWJZvMGRzjIr7gpTrOImniCFTlEB1G orCg== 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=ZgSf2GICR6CVXEiynAYAAIMxx1ZVMxdikwSkaRATOd4=; b=gHibNZ+HSGFTkPW+dOT6Bt26aXfnkaTkScIjt+UPP6tM1AES7nmEvgXlD4xE3TvG0N s18xZkD2T6Dtej5MdSJ1n6SlzQ9RqeRV1TxahbTEXYJvK2R97/zAFJeC3j9r9s3mQawc /kmwGPBmYCXH3vtV98V4Mqa0WTK8nD4intVkwFi8I3IC/hMH1SzLdQ/rI4bACOFijCCz 0knSMulQB2wLo9A/hxVsh7rUnL6GsaZgV0eX8eDVKmje0I+0RQGBf/SYl+IK3h68IwSu /MmezJ/eSBJu8L7eLL4/j+yIf6gqbdacue1jHuXvQGW8EytplIe3s/2PBrUlb9z3jLX8 bTcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJbFDqTh/9L3Gyw2nPKH8YOtwLWuko2Rl42PnvTpPRnXTCKBtuq QabW8VLd6TOrvKEpQMDwZmIMrnkui7WGoLgoRWM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovtTY5RjMRNQv8KNxUNMZSAuXWwZKI46B4Bs0KVkOG0hs17EBOYrCLEHHINdPKZ8rzsGoTr0P91UG/kWSrgDTk= X-Received: by 10.129.67.24 with SMTP id q24mr9756201ywa.277.1515392872083; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 22:27:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.199.2 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:27:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 01:27:51 -0500 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="===============8917044789128620206==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8917044789128620206== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045eb268d5f65a05623de5f8" --f403045eb268d5f65a05623de5f8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I desire input from And, preferably well before the vote, on these matters. I also worry that passage of, say, (only?) the third amendment would totally derail all of the LLG's ongoing efforts. On the one hand, that would sorta be the point. On the other hand, it could be annoying or could end up spreading our resources to thinly (perhaps especially if all three motions in this bundle get passed together). On Jan 5, 2018 11:49, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > It should be noted that the language need not be capable of expressing > every PAS or even every effable expression/concept (these two things are > not necessarily equivalent; the set of all PASs is a superset of the set = of > all effable things when the assumption applies). I take "unlimited" to me= an > "arbitrarily many" or "infinitely many", but not necessarily "all". There > could be gaps in which some things that are effable or PASs cannot be > expressed in the language. For an extremely simple example, if we take a > loglang according to this definition and then remove all of its words for > "cat", then I believe that the result is nonetheless a loglang according = to > this definition as well, albeit a more restricted and weaker one. Removin= g > some syntactic fuctions/features could produce the same result (for > example, by removing "and", or support for dependent clauses, or the > ability to generate tanru/'adjective-noun' pairs). > > I would not even expect/demand expressive closure (here meaning something > like the property that the effable combination or extension of expressibl= e > PAS(s) remains expressible). > > On Jan 5, 2018 11:30, "selpahi" wrote: > > On 05.01.2018 16:30, Ilmen wrote: > >> 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 exclud= e >> 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. >> > > I personally would not assert such an exclusion at the current time, but > we should discuss it. > > > There's something else that should be clarified about And's definition. > Does "unambiguous bidirectionality from PAS to phonological form and from > phonological form to PAS" imply that every PAS has *exactly* one > corresponding phonological form (as opposed to one or more)? Because that > would be quite a rigid language. In other words, does that definition > exclude things that let you change the word order without changing the > meaning (like selma'o FA)? > > > My current understanding is that there is no such restriction, except in > exacting consideration of formal expressions without regard to their > semantics (wherein one considers "if A then B" to be formally different > from "B if A" (among other things), for example). The bidirectionality is > not an isomorphism; in fact, it is not even necessarily a function in > either direction. It is just a relationship. > > I may be wrong about that though. > > > > Note: You only seconded the motion but did not yet approve of it formally= , >> if I'm not mistaken. >> > > Yes. I seconded the motion, which means I think it is worth being voted > on. A second does not entail agreement. Voting is a separate step (the > President has opened the vote in another thread). > > > Correct. Likewise for me. > > > > ~~~mi'e la selpa'i > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > --f403045eb268d5f65a05623de5f8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I desire input from And, preferably well before the vote,= on these matters.

I also worr= y that passage of, say, (only?) the third amendment would totally derail al= l of the LLG's ongoing efforts. On the one hand, that would sorta be th= e point. On the other hand, it could be annoying or could end up spreading = our resources to thinly (perhaps especially if all three motions in this bu= ndle get passed together).

On Jan 5, 2018 11:49, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
It should be noted that the language need not be capable of exp= ressing every PAS or even every effable expression/concept (these two thing= s are not necessarily equivalent; the set of all PASs is a superset of the = set of all effable things when the assumption applies). I take "unlimi= ted" to mean "arbitrarily many" or "infinitely many&quo= t;, but not necessarily "all". There could be gaps in which some = things that are effable or PASs cannot be expressed in the language. For an= extremely simple example, if we take a loglang according to this definitio= n and then remove all of its words for "cat", then I believe that= the result is nonetheless a loglang according to this definition as well, = albeit a more restricted and weaker one. Removing some syntactic fuctions/f= eatures could produce the same result (for example, by removing "and&q= uot;, or support for dependent clauses, or the ability to generate tanru/&#= 39;adjective-noun' pairs).

I would not even expect/demand expressive closure (here meaning some= thing like the property that the effable combination or extension of expres= sible PAS(s) remains expressible).

On Jan 5, 2018 11:30, "selpahi"= <selpahi@selpah= i.de> wrote:
On 05.01.2= 018 16:30, Ilmen wrote:
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<= br> must yield exactly the same result.

I personally wo= uld not assert such an exclusion at the current time, but we should discuss= it.


There's something else that should be clarified about And's definit= ion. Does "unambiguous bidirectionality from PAS to phonological form = and from phonological form to PAS" imply that every PAS has *exactly* = one corresponding phonological form (as opposed to one or more)? Because th= at would be quite a rigid language. In other words, does that definition ex= clude things that let you change the word order without changing the meanin= g (like selma'o FA)?
My current understanding is that there is no such= restriction, except in exacting consideration of formal expressions withou= t regard to their semantics (wherein one considers "if A then B" = to be formally different from "B if A" (among other things), for = example). The bidirectionality is not an isomorphism; in fact, it is not ev= en necessarily a function in either direction. It is just a relationship.

I may be wrong about that= though.



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

Yes. I seconded the motion, which means I think it is worth being voted on.= A second does not entail agreement. Voting is a separate step (the Preside= nt has opened the vote in another thread).

Correct. Likewise for me.
=



~~~mi'e la selpa'i

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

--f403045eb268d5f65a05623de5f8-- --===============8917044789128620206== 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 --===============8917044789128620206==--