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

[lojban] What's the current situation with Chomsky's grammar for Lojban?



Just short citation from  http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/swh.txt
115. lojbab: (responding to 106.)  The claim I made is that John Parks-Clifford,
a linguist involved with Loglan	since 1975, told me that he investigated 1970's
Loglan using TG	techniques during the 70's and was able	to demonstrate to his
own satisfaction that all features of Loglan were amenable to TG analysis, and
that he	found no 'unusual' transforms.	More recently, a student in Cleveland
has been attempting to develop a more formal TG	description of the language.
This will undoubtedly take a while, but	he reported to me earlier this year that
not only had he	found nothing unusual, he had identified some elegant features
of the language	using TG techniques.  The features he reported are indeed con-
sistent	with the language definition, and included aspects that	the student had
not been taught	(i.e. that we had not put into any published documents that the
student	had received.

So where is that description by a student from Cleveland?
What's that unusual in Lojban grammar?
Have there been other attempts to describe our beloved badna bangu? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/HMVkQlJMvtYJ.
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.