[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: word proposal

At 11:12 PM 11/16/01 +0000, you wrote:

--- In lojban@y..., Logical Language Group <lojban@l...> wrote:
> At 02:21 AM 11/14/01 +0000, thinkit8@l... wrote:
> >ok, i'll explain my example better here. the gismu were
> >not "designed" at all. they were more or less randomly made, and
> >rafsi more or less randomly attached.
>
> On the contrary, they were designed according to a computer
> algorithm. However, the ability to make distinct rafsi and/or
modals was
> not a factor in that algorithm, in part because the gismu were made
long
> before the rafsi or modals.

I know, but the alrgorithm was based on natural languages. Thus it
wasn't really designed at all.
So an algorithm that processes "natural data" is by that fact itself not designed and "random"? 


> >because of this, we got a lot
> >of irregularities. the book specifically mentions that many modals
> >are irregular. a simple example: marji is ma'e because manri took
> >ma'i. why? simply because marji and manri are both one of the few
> >chosen modals, yet both have the same CV'V pattern. modals are one
> >case where it's very clear that the cmavo directly corresponds to
the
> >gismu, so there really should be a regularity there.
>
> When the modals were first created, they were only loosely tied to
the
> gismu that they were keyed from. The strict place structure
concord that
> now exists came a few years later. At the time of creation,
however, we
> had certain meanings in mind, and used the gismu as memory hooks,
such that
> similarity was sufficient.

Again it's the history argument. If you're going to try to do better
what took eons to develop,
We weren't, at least not in gismu formation. We were simply seeking a measurable standard of neutrality. Unlike pc, I am not willing to concede that this approach failed in its goal. I have some limited LogFlash data that may show one way or another, and I will not judge until the analysis is done (unfortunately, that analysis hasn't been at the top of my priority list). 


why let a microscopic amount of history prevent you from doing better?
Because I never sought to "do better". My goal when I started was to fulfill JCB's language concept. I don't believe that the perfect language exists, or even that a "better" language exists. "Better" from one standpoint will almost certainly be "worse" from another. 


> >it's more or
> >less a form of conjugation, which natural languages are mocked
> >endlessly for their irregularity in.
>
> Of course modals are completely optional in Lojban. You need never use
> them. Use subordinate sentences, or fi'o.

Irregular rafsi is the bigger one (with a lot more to learn).


They are regular.
I have trouble learning vocabulary, but found this not especially difficult using LogFlash 2 - easier than learning the gismu themselves. There are no more than 4 possible forms for a short rafsi based on any gismu plus the null option, and no more than one of each of the three possible forms can be chosen. Given the density of rafsi packing, almost every rafsi you learn reduces the possibilities for others, so that by the time you've learned half the rafsi, you've actually learned almost all of them by elimination. 


> It's all a matter of priority. Having identified 3 groups of cmavo
that
> you wish were regular, coupled with the other cmavo that ARE
regular (the
> digits 1-9, se/te/ve, ti/ta/tu, etc) you quickly find that there
isn't
> enough cmavo space to have regularity for everything.

I'd say digits 1-9 are irregular because of the key lack of
alphabetic ordering.
You can make all the ridiculous standards for "regularity" that you want. We weren't trying for "regular", but for mnemonically easier than randomness. 


> >craig, you say you like the gismu. but the fact is you have to
> >change the gismu to redo the rafsi. for example, you could
> >standardize on two letter cmavo adding "n" to make rafsi,
>
> You are then limited to around 100 cmavo.

How does adding "n" for rafsi limit your cmavo-space? There is no
illegal rafsi made by adding n to a two letter cmavo.
I misread this. The answer is that many two letter cmavo don't warrant a rafsi, and the CVn form is thus better used for a gismu with that "n". Of the rest, the most commonly used rafsi in lujvo are the se/te/ve/xe set, and they started as with all using "l" which is pretty much like what you are asking, but were changed specifically because of the sound-alike problem. 


> >and adjust
> >gismu accordingly so you don't have conflicts (as gismu will have
> >their own way of forming rafsi). and you can organize the gismu
> >according to frequency of use,
>
> When you design a language, you have no idea what the frequency of
use of
> the words will be. We did the initial rafsi assignments in part
based on
> usage of corresponding words in making lujvo for TLI Loglan, but we
knew
> that was not a particularly accurate basis for frequencies. We
tried to
> redo the rafsi in 1993 based on the limited frequency that had been
seen,
> but the community decided that it wanted all the most familiar
rafsi to be
> held "sacred" and unchanged, and as a result relatively fewer
changes were
> made.

i wasn't referring to redoing the rafsi so that more popular gismu
have more (and better) rafsi. i meant arranging the gismu so that
the rafsi can be systematically deduced.
You said "based on frequency of use". We did not know the frequency of use. I'm not sure that we know even now what the frequency of use of words, rafsi, cmavo will be in the language of fluent speakers.
In any event, Rex May once advocated for simple and regular rafsi and eventually came to the idea of dropping the gismu and using the rafsi as the roots. JCB's answer was simple: it might work, and it might even be "better" for some, but it would not be "Loglan". Rex now has Ceqli, which I presume is designed according to his premise. You may like it better. But it still is not Loglan, which is the language that I committed to complete and republish. Never did I intend to invent a new or better language, and indeed I have often deferred the title of "inventor" to JCB, who is the rightful honoree. If people want to redesign the "perfect language", then this has never been the project for them. I am satisfied to try to do the best with what we have. 

lojbab

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org