From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Jan 29 11:32:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 29 Jan 2002 19:32:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 32902 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2002 19:32:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2002 19:32:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2002 19:32:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0TJWEu18453 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:32:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:32:13 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: lojban as a programming language [was Re: [lojban] Lojban for lay programmers] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1138703 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple > Lee Daniel Crocker: > >And I don't know whether or not Lojban will ever become a full- > >fledge "human language". I hope so, but I fear that the fact that > >it was designed utterly without regard to the hard-wired language > >processing features of the human brain might make that difficult. > > >I'm not saying that was a bad decision: indeed, that's one of the > >very purposes for which it was created: to see if it could help > >discover such features. But cognitive science beat us to the > >punch, and there is now no serious doubt that such features are > >present, so Lojban's deviance from them is a problem for getting > >it accepted as a common-use language. So Chomsky 1, S-W 0. Is the game over? -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.