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

Re: [lojban] Tangent: Is there a better grammar?



Correct me if I'm mistaken, but guaspi appears to have a comparable vocabulary size, and merely replaces sumti markup with a tonally-modified cases; that is, it doesn't seem to radically deviate from lojban's predicate logic foundation, nor make great gains in brevity/simplicity-- the author claims length is "comparable to english" where I always thought that lojban was briefer than English. 

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 13:28, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/guaspi/

-Robin

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:30:15AM +0000, GFBeresford@gmail.com
wrote:
> I know *someone* tried to make a language similar to lojban using
> the asian tonal system. This would certainly allow shorter
> utterances, since there are WAY more one-syllable sounds
> available... though it isn't really an improved grammar, just a
> different alphabet...
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2010 2:14am, Oren <get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 01:03, And Rosta and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >[* As I see it, the design problem has two parts. Both have to do
> >with finding ways to logically precise meanings concise enough to
> >be worth the effort of verbalizing. One part is to find a more
> >concise way of of encoding variables than standard predicate logic
> >notation and Lojban offer, given that in most propositions we
> >express (in natural language) there are many variables and each
> >variable tends to be argument of many predicates. The other part
> >is to devise an inventory of predicates that expand to more
> >complex logical structures.]
>
>
>
> >I don't really see your case here; if one of the basic goals is to
> >be a useful human language, then I don't see any alternative to
> >predicate logic as two-dimensional representation of utterances.
> >Or, if there was one. it would seem inherently illogical due to
> >it's complexity. Could you (or anyone) expand this thought?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >--
>
> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >Groups "lojban" group.
>
> >To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>
>
> >For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>

--
They say:  "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
And I'm  thinking:  "Does it even occur to you to try for something
other  than  the default  outcome?"  See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.