Subject: Re: word proposal

From: Logical Language Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:57:04 -0500

At 11:12 PM 11/16/01 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In lojban@y..., Logical Language Group <lojban@l...> wrote:
> > At 02:21 AM 11/14/01 +0000, thinkit8@l... wrote:
> > >ok, i'll explain my example better here. the gismu were
> > >not "designed" at all. they were more or less randomly made, and
> > >rafsi more or less randomly attached.
> >
> > On the contrary, they were designed according to a computer
> > algorithm. However, the ability to make distinct rafsi and/or
>modals was
> > not a factor in that algorithm, in part because the gismu were made
>long
> > before the rafsi or modals.
>
>I know, but the alrgorithm was based on natural languages. Thus it
>wasn't really designed at all.

So an algorithm that processes "natural data" is by that fact itself not 
designed and "random"?

> > >because of this, we got a lot
> > >of irregularities. the book specifically mentions that many modals
> > >are irregular. a simple example: marji is ma'e because manri took
> > >ma'i. why? simply because marji and manri are both one of the few
> > >chosen modals, yet both have the same CV'V pattern. modals are one
> > >case where it's very clear that the cmavo directly corresponds to
>the
> > >gismu, so there really should be a regularity there.
> >
> > When the modals were first created, they were only loosely tied to
>the
> > gismu that they were keyed from. The strict place structure
>concord that
> > now exists came a few years later. At the time of creation,
>however, we
> > had certain meanings in mind, and used the gismu as memory hooks,
>such that
> > similarity was sufficient.
>
>Again it's the history argument. If you're going to try to do better
>what took eons to develop,

We weren't, at least not in gismu formation. We were simply seeking a 
measurable standard of neutrality. Unlike pc, I am not willing to concede 
that this approach failed in its goal. I have some limited LogFlash data 
that may show one way or another, and I will not judge until the analysis 
is done (unfortunately, that analysis hasn't been at the top of my priority 
list).

>why let a microscopic amount of history prevent you from doing better?

Because I never sought to "do better". My goal when I started was to 
fulfill JCB's language concept. I don't believe that the perfect language 
exists, or even that a "better" language exists. "Better" from one 
standpoint will almost certainly be "worse" from another.

> > >it's more or
> > >less a form of conjugation, which natural languages are mocked
> > >endlessly for their irregularity in.
> >
> > Of course modals are completely optional in Lojban. You need never use
> > them. Use subordinate sentences, or fi'o.
>
>Irregular rafsi is the bigger one (with a lot more to learn).

They are regular.

I have trouble learning vocabulary, but found this not especially difficult 
using LogFlash 2 - easier than learning the gismu themselves. There are no 
more than 4 possible forms for a short rafsi based on any gismu plus the 
null option, and no more than one of each of the three possible forms can 
be chosen. Given the density of rafsi packing, almost every rafsi you learn 
reduces the possibilities for others, so that by the time you've learned 
half the rafsi, you've actually learned almost all of them by elimination.

> > It's all a matter of priority. Having identified 3 groups of cmavo
>that
> > you wish were regular, coupled with the other cmavo that ARE
>regular (the
> > digits 1-9, se/te/ve, ti/ta/tu, etc) you quickly find that there
>isn't
> > enough cmavo space to have regularity for everything.
>
>I'd say digits 1-9 are irregular because of the key lack of
>alphabetic ordering.

You can make all the ridiculous standards for "regularity" that you 
want. We weren't trying for "regular", but for mnemonically easier than 
randomness.

> > >craig, you say you like the gismu. but the fact is you have to
> > >change the gismu to redo the rafsi. for example, you could
> > >standardize on two letter cmavo adding "n" to make rafsi,
> >
> > You are then limited to around 100 cmavo.
>
>How does adding "n" for rafsi limit your cmavo-space? There is no
>illegal rafsi made by adding n to a two letter cmavo.

I misread this. The answer is that many two letter cmavo don't warrant a 
rafsi, and the CVn form is thus better used for a gismu with that "n". Of 
the rest, the most commonly used rafsi in lujvo are the se/te/ve/xe set, 
and they started as with all using "l" which is pretty much like what you 
are asking, but were changed specifically because of the sound-alike problem.

> > >and adjust
> > >gismu accordingly so you don't have conflicts (as gismu will have
> > >their own way of forming rafsi). and you can organize the gismu
> > >according to frequency of use,
> >
> > When you design a language, you have no idea what the frequency of
>use of
> > the words will be. We did the initial rafsi assignments in part
>based on
> > usage of corresponding words in making lujvo for TLI Loglan, but we
>knew
> > that was not a particularly accurate basis for frequencies. We
>tried to
> > redo the rafsi in 1993 based on the limited frequency that had been
>seen,
> > but the community decided that it wanted all the most familiar
>rafsi to be
> > held "sacred" and unchanged, and as a result relatively fewer
>changes were
> > made.
>
>i wasn't referring to redoing the rafsi so that more popular gismu
>have more (and better) rafsi. i meant arranging the gismu so that
>the rafsi can be systematically deduced.

You said "based on frequency of use". We did not know the frequency of 
use. I'm not sure that we know even now what the frequency of use of 
words, rafsi, cmavo will be in the language of fluent speakers.

In any event, Rex May once advocated for simple and regular rafsi and 
eventually came to the idea of dropping the gismu and using the rafsi as 
the roots. JCB's answer was simple: it might work, and it might even be 
"better" for some, but it would not be "Loglan". Rex now has Ceqli, which 
I presume is designed according to his premise. You may like it 
better. But it still is not Loglan, which is the language that I committed 
to complete and republish. Never did I intend to invent a new or better 
language, and indeed I have often deferred the title of "inventor" to JCB, 
who is the rightful honoree. If people want to redesign the "perfect 
language", then this has never been the project for them. I am satisfied 
to try to do the best with what we have.

lojbab

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org