From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Jul 28 10:32:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 28 Jul 2002 17:32:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 20580 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2002 17:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2002 17:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2002 17:32:19 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17Yrtz-0000g6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:32:19 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Yrtn-0000fo-00; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:32:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Yrtj-0000ff-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:32:03 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (smmsp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6SHaSoT069953 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:36:28 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g6SH2vIm069484 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:02:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:02:57 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: lojban brochure Message-ID: <20020728170257.GA69422@allusion.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010730221611.00b10c00@pop.cais.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020723025544.032cba90@pop.east.cox.net> <20020723103956.E28971@miranda.org> <20020723202414.4923.qmail@pi.meson.org> <1027862685.31650.35.camel@bapli> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1027862685.31650.35.camel@bapli> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 342 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 02:24:45PM +0100, John Leuner wrote: [...] > I don't think it's a good idea to compare Lojban to a computer > programming language in the brochure. FWIW, I think this comparison is a good idea. The proficency of humans with computer programming languages is important for lojban because it suggests that the LALR(1)-ness of the lojban grammar shouldn't make it more difficult for humans than natural languages. Additionally this comparison certainly targets the core potential lojban audience, which seems to be people interested in either languages, computers, or both. --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9RCPADrrilS51AZ8RAqaTAJ0XKI7gNqTpOmpOrC5YIB7Bmj+ZEACgtmfm rXAcL/V1Suxw5NYbDgdBl4Q= =at// -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/--