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

Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla



On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:38:36AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> anaphoric pronouns, reduplicated connectives, right ends of
> various constructions (to match the intentions, not just fit the rules).
> That'll do for starters and all of them about practical things.

None of these are discussed here, but I get what you mean.

> Whether cmevla are brevla is definitely not in the list;
> it is about saving a handful of lines in a grammar.

That was my point.

> Well, it depends upon what you mean by a real users group.
> I don't know what the figures are for Lojban (nor how they
> might be arrived at) but, at the moment, at least Klingon,
> Dothraki, Na'vi, and toki pona that I know of claim followings
> in the hundreds (again, I have no idea where the numbers come from).

No way, Dothraki is a fully specified and used language? %^D
Ok, sure, why not...

> As for simplicity, assuming there were some objective measure of that,
> I doubt that Lojban would do that well against, say, toki pona,
> even setting aside the problem of learning 10,000 words or so.

I was talking about full-fledged languages. :^D

> Even Esperanto is simpler -- for educated Westerners --
> than Lojban (even including vocab learning).

But less consistant to the best of my knowledge.
And not everybody is an educated Westerner.

> Don't worry about splitting the community; it never was nor ever could be a unity.
> We will go on, squabbling every inch of the way and yet come up
> with a decent language at any given point and any given speaker.

Hehe, good to hear that.

> speaking as a logician, there is a right way,
> or at least several equally right ways, and as a result, a large number of wrong ways.
> None of those are listed above but are high on my personal list.

Wow, I didn't think there are _still_ logicians who don't agree with Carnap on that matter:

> "It is not our business to set up prohibitions, but to arrive at conventions...
> In logic there are no morals. Everyone is at liberty to build up his own logic,
> i.e. his own language, as he wishes. All that is required of him is that,
> if he wishes to discuss it, he must state his methods clearly, and give
> syntactical rules instead of philosophical arguments."
-- The Logical Syntax of Language, §17 (1937)


v4hn

Attachment: pgpStf1r4j6mp.pgp
Description: PGP signature