Received: from localhost ([::1]:61000 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YEB12-0004bv-8M; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:13:16 -0800 Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177]:46534) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YEB0y-0004bQ-V1 for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:13:13 -0800 Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p6so14771463qcv.8 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:13:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type; bh=vkc1k2qxhGjYs1WqS3ujswYLBRseRFnGa/fOkj/IxL0=; b=aSD8WqLZOBs2NybZj7GHrAhA9Sp0Shh9slTaOPCW9ZMknDGwjQ7pBNc2FFcHi9yex6 KURIlHj1nZIC6TtMMA25110LJ3EflURXC16qKQPFrPdDAZpMdhPo9sHuMsmYttpqiKDN IFR9FggN7leV3ES7Bang/z5/0J2+hX0UdfPmSw8D8FM0UjQ9+JIyyM5it+4MQSHPGFW7 /Plyob3cKLxZjC0j1JqG4S9TqQ1e2y107bZYXrgzWjaQ8QnFDQsK6Zma61wxqMHaCWhM zDYYNfh4AfD9PZw+gGUNp7mN7g19lA/W4WB1pKDadtvbPer0LQ7uGV1JcqxTpdwdJmsM 0r6w== X-Received: by 10.229.114.137 with SMTP id e9mr76217650qcq.0.1421907185917; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (c-69-249-31-89.hsd1.nj.comcast.net. [69.249.31.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g100sm21719qge.1.2015.01.21.22.13.04 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:13:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 01:13:03 -0500 From: Alex Burka To: llg-members@lojban.org Message-ID: <0E1B17ED8997407F9A89C9F6B0905A35@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1452581.qY9A6FZISZ@caracal> References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <1452581.qY9A6FZISZ@caracal> X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.9 X-Spam_score_int: 9 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 Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:52:26 guskant wrote: > > Besides, it may be too much advanced thought, but I think all official > > gismu and cmavo should be defined in Lojban. > > > > A language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated by a > > grammar, but the universe expressed by a language depends on > > definitions of words. As long as the words of a language are defined > > by another language, the universe is restricted to that can be > > expressed by the language used for the definitions. I think the > > universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the other > > languages. > > > > > Defining all words of a language in that language necessarily produces a > circular sequence of definitions, which makes it impossible for someone who > doesn't already know the language to figure out what they mean. I'm not against > defining Lojban words in Lojban, but they should also be defined in all six > source languages. > > [...] Content analysis details: (0.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (durka42[at]gmail.com) 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.216.177 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (durka42[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_WL Mailspike good senders 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="===============5052301189051683016==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5052301189051683016== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="54c094ef_58fa9674_12109" --54c094ef_58fa9674_12109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:52:26 guskant wrote: > > Besides, it may be too much advanced thought, but I think all official > > gismu and cmavo should be defined in Lojban. > > > > A language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated by a > > grammar, but the universe expressed by a language depends on > > definitions of words. As long as the words of a language are defined > > by another language, the universe is restricted to that can be > > expressed by the language used for the definitions. I think the > > universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the other > > languages. > > > > > Defining all words of a language in that language necessarily produces a > circular sequence of definitions, which makes it impossible for someone who > doesn't already know the language to figure out what they mean. I'm not against > defining Lojban words in Lojban, but they should also be defined in all six > source languages. > > Well yes, but this is the case with any dictionary. I think we agree -- work is needed both on expanding the natlang definitions, and the Lojban ones, in parallel. Lojban definitions can help with this process by making words more accessible to jbopre who don't speak or have trouble with the natlangs of a word's current definitions. If these hypothetical jbopre understand a new word with the help of the Lojban definition, they can write a high-quality definition in their native natlang. > > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:47:11 And Rosta wrote: > > 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. > > > > > I think the formal grammar should stay. For one thing, it allows a kind of > humor not possible in natlangs, sentences that are syntactically correct > according to the formal grammar but not the "actual grammar", such as "mi te.u > do du ra'o lo gerku pe naku". > > Agreed. The formal grammar is one of the features which makes Lojban unique. > > Pierre > -- > loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org (mailto:Llg-members@lojban.org) > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --54c094ef_58fa9674_12109 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

=20

On Wednesday, January = 21, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:= 52:26 guskant wrote:
Besides= , it may be too much advanced thought, but I think all official
gismu and cmavo should be defined in Lojban.

A = language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated by a
g= rammar, but the universe expressed by a language depends on
def= initions of words. As long as the words of a language are defined
by another language, the universe is restricted to that can be
expressed by the language used for the definitions. I think the
<= div>universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the other=
languages.

Defining all = words of a language in that language necessarily produces a
ci= rcular sequence of definitions, which makes it impossible for someone who=
doesn't already know the language to figure out what they mea= n. I'm not against
defining Lojban words in Lojban, but they s= hould also be defined in all six
source languages.
=
Well yes, but this is the case with any di= ctionary. I think we agree -- work is needed both on expanding the natlan= g definitions, and the Lojban ones, in parallel. Lojban definitions can h= elp with this process by making words more accessible to jbopre who don't= speak or have trouble with the natlangs of a word's current definitions.= If these hypothetical jbopre understand a new word with the help of the = Lojban definition, they can write a high-quality definition in their nati= ve natlang.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:47:11 And Rost= a wrote:
It's because it sad= dles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal
grammars= aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a
<= div>useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession= of
which should be a sine qua non for a loglang.

I think the formal grammar should stay. =46= or one thing, it allows a kind of
humor not possible in natlan= gs, sentences that are syntactically correct
according to the = formal grammar but not the =22actual grammar=22, such as =22mi te.u
do du ra'o lo gerku pe naku=22.
Agreed. The formal grammar is one of the features which makes Lojb= an unique. 

Pierre
--
loi mintu = se ckaji danlu cu jmaji


=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Llg-m= embers mailing list
=20 =20 =20 =20
=20

--54c094ef_58fa9674_12109-- --===============5052301189051683016== 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 --===============5052301189051683016==--