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

[Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>]

I think some sort of tonal inclusion would actually be quite helpful and useful in Lojban (and cool!), but I'm not sure what it should look like.  It is interesting to thing of, say, marking predicate positions with tone, but this becomes rather redundant (and silly/unfeasible for other linguistic reasons).

One obvious place to put tone would be as a simply phoneme.  Even a single, marked high tone on vowels would provide a huge increase in the number of gismu that could be constructed.  But then that's not really a change in grammar.

I've been thinking about this issue, and might send out a sort of manifesto at some point, detailing the things that I would have done differently if I were working with the team designing Lojban--or, at least the things I would have brought to their attention to consider while they were constructing the language.  I'm not sure if that will be useful at all for this discussion, but I hope it will.

Chris

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 18:30, <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.

-- 
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.