From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 01 10:32:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 17:32:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 15747 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 17:32:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 17:32:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 17:32:35 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.6e.f631e3c (17377) for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 13:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6e.f631e3c.28c275ae@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 13:32:30 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Another question: Loglan/Lojban To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6e.f631e3c.28c275ae_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_6e.f631e3c.28c275ae_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think it is the case any more -- if it ever was -- that translating from one of Loglan& Lojban to the other is merely a matter of substituting one word for another and perhaps occasionally changing a construction. Lojban is provably grammatically unambiguous, with all the rigor aboout grammar that that entails, while Loglan's grammar may work but is not (last time I checked) completely proven and so is slightly more free. In the decade and some of separation a number of changes have occurred in both, rarely in the same direction. Most of them are the result of solving a problem when it turned up, though quite a few in Lojban are the result of rethinking whole areas from scratch: the humongous tense system, for example, or the plethora of negations available, or the enriched emotion/attitude systems. It has been argued that you can say anything that you can say in Loglan in Lojban abvout as easily, but that there are Lojban expressions which cannot be nearly as easily rendered in Loglan. All the examples proposed have been challenged, but most of the challenges have been questioned, so it is not clear wheether there is any advantage in that respect either. What Lojban has at the moment is a thriving community, while Loglan is deep in a continuing transition phase with the resultant loss of continuity of purpose and membership. --part1_6e.f631e3c.28c275ae_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think it is the case any more -- if it ever was -- that translating
from one of Loglan& Lojban to the other is merely a matter of substituting
one word for another and perhaps occasionally changing a construction.
Lojban is provably grammatically unambiguous, with all the rigor aboout
grammar that that entails, while Loglan's grammar may work but is not (last
time I checked) completely proven and so is slightly more free. In the
decade and some of separation a number of changes have occurred in both,
rarely in the same direction. Most of them are the result of solving a
problem when it turned up, though quite a few in Lojban are the result of
rethinking whole areas from scratch: the humongous tense system, for example,
or the plethora of negations available, or the enriched emotion/attitude
systems. It has been argued that you can say anything that you can say in
Loglan in Lojban abvout as easily, but that there are Lojban expressions
which cannot be nearly as easily rendered in Loglan. All the examples
proposed have been challenged, but most of the challenges have been
questioned, so it is not clear wheether there is any advantage in that
respect either. What Lojban has at the moment is a thriving community, while
Loglan is deep in a continuing transition phase with the resultant loss of
continuity of purpose and membership. --part1_6e.f631e3c.28c275ae_boundary--