A modest proposal for a way forward together.Some say Lojban just needs a bit more description, some say it needs a number of changes, so say it needs scraping and a fresh start.
Needs for what, pray? Though some seem unhappy (I can't think why) with this characterization, the reason for Lojban is orthoparsing. Does Lojban have this property? There is scarcely a demonstration of monoparsing, let alone that the resulting structure maps to a unique formula of logic, and far from that it is the right unique structure. So, let's get together and prove. In the process, we will find whatpartsof the current definition need filling in, because they will be points where the sought algorithm lacks input. Further, the development of the algorithm will guide what form the additions should take. The same will be true if there are parts that are just wrong, don't fit in with the program. In the end, we will have a complete description of a Lojban pretty close (I assume, but then, ...) to the present one which will demonstrably do what it claims to do and will differ from the present one only in filling in what was left out (or had not yet gotten in) and in corecting what was wrong before. Wrong in a fairly objective way -- not just inelegant or some aesthetic of political consideration but because it got in the way of the project. This seems to be a project to satisfy everyone (well, there is probably a perfectionist somewhere who will not accept a finished functioning language while he can still dream a"perfect" but unbegun one). As a side result, the work on the algorithm will probably produce a G&T grammar for Lojban as well, giving a complete description in yet another linguistic theory.On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:20 PM, Dustin Lacewell <dlacewell@gmail.com> wrote:
TR NS,This is the unifying reason the FAR MAJORITY of conlangs die! Accept this at face value!On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:02 PM, TR NS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 1:30:07 PM UTC-4, lojbab wrote:
This project is some 60 years old and we have a lot of history of people
explicitly leaving because of changes imposed from on-high. More
importantly, we have the history of dozens if not hundreds of conlangs
whose usage has not spread because people wouldn't stop fiddling with
the language design. Those that have survived and spread have stopped
being developed, and are simply USED.Do you truly believe people would leave the language if a change was made form "on-high" if it were a clear improvement? Just because it is a change?--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/_juGorRhWtI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
--
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.--
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.