Received: from localhost ([::1]:54228 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDYDJ-0001pZ-Qj; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:47:22 -0800 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]:47010) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDYDH-0001pN-6B for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:47:19 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id bs8so22966113wib.1 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:47:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=tT92mT56Y8MV0zc3utNvbBNnVfwvphI3c/ltp8jMfi4=; b=drCNFk2BnFcPjLYP1tGHOgksgyi1arnzJxM4DTOqptkJYW2QaGkTG8FAFndgYXeYgJ qRj0mCJsZie16TcfxG+aQuGB0LiVg+/+WatC7mS97OfYOkvDNDpqIdf7kcwWcjnvZR9Q h9tRjExI4J1qvA5arJFMrmiiSa8vaCmAAgXyiJ4TT2ZiVrn8QexrwSYtxVUGXFdI8R+g aS6VbTAWT9WU+8V8UYN8lWN2WNrKmcyTvUpmA6wq6Hy2oJJ1M+7tmx8lj4QtAvsPgWjW PYpTDaWwDwzsYCJ0JNWFHAxr01PAFv3SqsQKvq/sufObMbqFF5j0cr7zGGb3X9E3uB/j 4ssw== X-Received: by 10.180.73.170 with SMTP id m10mr47124750wiv.72.1421758032572; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([2.31.159.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hz9sm21156391wjb.17.2015.01.20.04.47.11 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:47:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:47:11 +0000 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam_score: 1.7 X-Spam_score_int: 17 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" wrote: > I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could > bring any damage to Lojban, It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language faculty.) [...] Content analysis details: (1.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (and.rosta[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.212.180 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails Subject: Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 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="===============8169688474332699918==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============8169688474332699918== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030303050808020809000900" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030303050808020809000900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" > wrote: > I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could= > bring any damage to Lojban, It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal= grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment,= a useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession = of which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is no= t really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implici= t actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPF= K could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could b= e discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal= grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for = the actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might = jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit de= viates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever= plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once = said he believed he did use the formal=20 grammar when spontaneously producing and comprehending utterances, but if= that is true then I think he must have been using raw brute force brain = power, rather than the human language faculty.) > I wish you could continue the discussion somewhere else. Now that we no longer use Jboske, I'm not sure what the appropriate forum= is. Only mailing lists work for me. By all means nominate what you think= is the appropriate list and reply to me there... --And. --------------030303050808020809000900 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could
> bring any damage to Lojban,

It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language faculty.)

> I wish you could continue the discussion somewhere else.

Now that we no longer use Jboske, I'm not sure what the appropriate forum is. Only mailing lists work for me. By all means nominate what you think is the appropriate list and reply to me there...

--And.

--------------030303050808020809000900-- --===============8169688474332699918== 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 --===============8169688474332699918==--