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

Re: [lojban] Logos Initiative



2014-09-23 18:03 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Gleki Arxokuna, On 23/09/2014 13:44:
2014-09-23 16:28 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:

    Gleki Arxokuna, On 16/09/2014 17:57:

             On 9/15/2014 11:14 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote:
                 Personally, though I am perfection-driven, I
                 have decided that it is a better use of time and talent (a lot of the
                 one, a little of the other) to work with a nearly completed project in
                 the hope that it will mange to get completed into a product that is good
                 enough (does all the crucial things, even if in sloppy, inefficient,
                 even ugly, ways).

        Provided both languages have a formal syntax and a clearly defined
        connection between the two dictionaries it won't matter a lot what
        language will be spoken since the machine translation will be 100%
        precise under such circumstances.


    This is not even remotely true. First of all, the formal syntaxes would have to contain logical forms, which a formal syntax indeed should, but hardly any do (and Lojban's doesn't).

I dont understand this. Once we know the place structure and the
syntactic tree in both languages, what can stop us?

I presume you're asking about Lojban specifically? There currently aren't rules that comprehensively map from Lojban sentences' phonological forms to logical forms. Besides place structures there are tags, quantifiers, connectives, and so forth. Some rules, such as "left scopes over right", imply a syntax at variance from the codified one.
In terms of syntactical parsing and conversion only my poor knowledge of loglan syntax and the lack of desire to learn it when the loglandic parser is still not as comprehensive as the lojbanic one prevent me from continuing to write such a converter. besides, very few people speak loglan so it's of low priority for me.
But a bot in IRC transcodes <mi cluva tu> into {mi prami do}.
As for BAI they also exist in Loglan. The lack of some words might mean that >=1 of the two languages need expanding their lexicon. 


    Second, the "clearly defined connection" between the dictionaries would work only if for each word in the one language there is a word in the other language that always translates it, and this one-to-one translation is explicitly stated.

    The only way this is going to happen is if the two languages are deliberately designed to be intertranslatable.

Since this project is/would be based on Loglan and Lojban then it is implied.

 I don't think it is implied.

The Logos Initiative clearly states the sources.



english is a tonal language.

 It isn't a tone language. Whether tone plays any role at all in English (i.e. intonation) is debatable; it's generally held that it does, and I think that it probably indeed does, but the evidence is not overwhelming.

Indeed. Indeed?
 


i wonder if there are non tonal languages except lojban.

 There are thousands that are as tonal as Lojban is.

Most known examples?
 


--And.

--
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.