On 9/3/2014 12:30 PM, selpa'i wrote:
la .van. cu cuskuOn Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:44:55AM -0700, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:Let's see how that line of objections, rather than ones to the cosmetics, can be met and turned into a positive discussion of Lojban.I'm sorry, I might have missed something here, but "It's all crap and anyone could do better" is no valid criticism pe'iIf the goal is to make a language that unambiguously encodes logic, then that's relatively easy to achieve. See xorban for one model that doesn't add too much unnecessary baggage. Lojban does achieves it too to some degree, but it has so much extras that most of the language is still undefined. We cannot easily convert Lojban to logic due to that.
I need to note here that if the goal is merely to encode logic, then Lojban can probably be called "successful" in that I believe that anything expressible in logical notation can probably be represented in Mex (the operators needed for any given notation have not been defined, but Mex is defined so as to allow innumerable sets of operators as well as precedences).
So far as I know, no one in the community is interested in such a narrow goal.
And what about simplicity? Here Gua\spi and Xorban are the clear winners, closely followed by Toaq Dzu, and far in the distance comes Lojban. Just compare the sizes of their grammars to get a rough idea.
Of course part of the problem is that very few such languages have been USED to the extent that Lojban has. Feature growth has come from usage.
lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.