Re: [lojban] Re: minimal lojban

[xah lee <xah@xahlee.org>]

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> If a minimal Lojban includes tanru, you *must* have one or the
> other, or you lose expressive power.  As it seems to me that the
> goas here is to produce a Kernel Language for Lojban (that is, the
> most minimal set of Lojban from which all the rest of Lojban can be
> described as just shortcuts), you don't want to lose expressive
> power.

Robin described my mind...

i find it irritating when reading tutorials which describes schemes of 
convenience or other reasons (e.g. sumti switching, and tanru order 
switching) and all the complex consequential combinatoric precedence 
and their meanings...

many of these things, as far as i know, are there to make lojban more 
syntactically varied for the taste of human expressions, which i think 
is misdirected design goal (possibly only as a hindsight). (i don't 
think lojban is ever suitable for human communication as with natural 
languages. And, selling lojban for human communication rather does harm 
to the language, disrupting and complicating its logic basis.) I like 
and view lojan as a logical system that can be used to paraphrase the 
contents human communication. And, it is unique in that role.

... so in this vein, also i find many translation of names and places 
to lojban rather time wasting and confounds the language. (e.g. such as 
inventing a lojban version for name of cities, or many tech terms and 
other lingoes ... )

i think it is important for lojban to stay tightly with it's logic 
connections.

I like a minimal lojban (or lojban kernel) because it simplifies 
learning with respect to my perspective of lojban, and also i don't 
have to deal with it in my lojban notes.

  Xah
  xah@xahlee.org
  http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


---------------
On Jan 26, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:


On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:27:39AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>> but i know there are bo and (ke, ke'i)... surely lojban isn't
>> complete without these??
>
> ke and ke'e are very rarely used.

I'm actually starting to use them quite often, oddly enough.

> bo is more often used in the {i <tag> bo} or the {na'e bo}
> constructions than in tanru. In the end it's a matter of taste
> whether you think ke-ke'e, bo or co is more essential for lojban.
> I wouldn't include bo and ke-ke'e in my minimal lojban, but that's
> just my point of view.

If a minimal Lojban includes tanru, you *must* have one or the
other, or you lose expressive power.  As it seems to me that the
goas here is to produce a Kernel Language for Lojban (that is, the
most minimal set of Lojban from which all the rest of Lojban can be
described as just shortcuts), you don't want to lose expressive
power.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/






To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/