[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: minimal lojban
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