The Mad Proposals
Jorge Llambias
replacements to the logical and non-logical connectives system.
Lojban Central is unanimously opposed to it, but does not mind my
posting it for your perusal. If public opinion is strongly in
favour they may consider it again (they say), so get paper and pen
ready and start writing to your senator.
I will also present some of the counterarguments to the proposal, but
you can be certain that it will be in a biased manner.
I will use {joi} to refer to all the non-logical connectives of
selmaho JOI, {je} for all of selmaho JA, etc. Since by definition
all the members of a selmaho have the same grammar, this makes
the discussion easier.
(The proposals are called "mad" for historical reasons.)
MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1:
Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} is allowed.
RATIONALE:
{je} and {joi}, the basic logical and non-logical connectives
(BIAS ALARM: {je} is being called the basic logical connective),
have very similar grammar. However, there are a few places where
{joi} is allowed, but {je} is not.
This restriction doesn't stop us from being able to say anything,
because there are other structures provided to cope with those functions.
For instance:
le xunre joi blanu bolci (the red mixed-and blue ball)
le xunre je blanu bolci (the red and blue ball)
are both legal, but:
mi joi do
*mi je do
The second one is illegal. The corresponding grammatical structure is:
mi .e do
Why is the {je} form illegal? Because to link sumti in general, we'd
have to use lots of {ku}'s:
le ninmu ku joi le nanmu
vs.
le ninmu .e le nanmu
with {je} we'd have to use {ku}, just like we do with {joi}:
*le ninmu ku je le nanmu
My point is that, since we have to use {ku}'s with {joi}'s anyway,
why not allow the {je} versions to be legal. The {.e} version would
still be there when needed.
(At this point I should say that John has ran the proposals through
the YACC, and there were no problems with that.)
One argument against, is that people will generalize from {mi je do}
to {le ninmu je le nanmu}. My response to that is that then people
will generalize from {mi joi do} to {le ninmu joi le nanmu}, so that
is not a new problem. The reply that {joi}'s are less central to Lojban
is not convincing to me, because I think that in real speech, logical
connectives are not more significant than non-logical ones.
(BTW, the ku-less form is illegal only because the parser can't handle
it, not because it generates any ambiguity.)
In short: Proposal 1 is not a change, but simply an extension that
removes an unnecessary restriction. It goes well with the many stones
for one bird philosophy, because it allows more than one way to say
the same thing. It doesn't introduce any weird interpretation of
anything, it's a natural extension that I bet fluent speakers will
make, whether the parser likes it or not.
MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1 part B:
Eliminate selmaho GA.
RATIONALE:
They become redundant. Just like {joigi} serves currently as the
forethought non-logical connective, {jegi} would do for the logical one.
The trade-off for the simplicity (we'll end up with only one series
of logical connectors when we're through, instead of the current 5)
is that they have two syllables instead of one.
My argument was that since they're forethought connectives, that
doesn't matter: people are supposed to think more and thus take
more time when using forethought. This didn't seem to be convincing
enough, though.
MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2:
Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}'s, and extend the grammar to allow {gijoi}'s
in the same function of bridi-tail connection.
RATIONALE:
A whole selmaho with 5 cmavo, of type {gi'e}, is eliminated, and replaced
by the almost identical compound cmavo of type {gije}, with the same
number of syllables. This requires almost no relearning.
As a bonus, afterthought bridi-tail connection (this is what {gi'e}'s do)
is also possible for the non-logical connectives.
Also, the afterthought form is made to look just like the one for whole
bridi:
.ije (for a whole bridi)
gije (for bridi-tail)
same as
.ijoi (existing)
gijoi (currently not possible)
MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 3:
Eliminate {gu'e}'s and replace them by {guje}'s. Also allow {gujoi}'s
to fullfill the same function for non-logical connectives.
RATIONALE:
Again, 5 cmavo eliminated. This time a new one {gu}, parallel to {gi}
is introduced (we eliminated its previous function in 1b, right?)
In case you don't remember, {gu'e}'s serve as forethought connectives
within tanru. IMHO a useless construction, but since they're there, we
provide them with a substitute.
{guje}'s would be most similar to the current form, but {jegu}'s
would be the logical choice. Then forethought connectives would all
be of the same form, instead of today's variety:
je gi .... gi .... (instead of ge ... gi ...)
joigi .... gi .... (as is now joigi ... gi ...)
je gu .... gu .... (instead of gu'e ... gi ...)
joigu .... gu .... (no current equivalent)
MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4:
Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho JA
RATIONALE:
This one is just to round everything off. The question connective becomes
regular.
-------------------- END OF PROPOSALS ----------------------
The net result is:
- Instead of five series of logical connectives: A, JA, GA, GIhA, GUhA
we are left with a single one: JA (plus A in case we want to spare ku's,
but cut the flow of our speech)
- We eliminate 15 (yes, you read correctly: fifteen!) cmavo:
ga, ge, go, je'i, ge'i, gi'a, gi'e, gi'i, gi'o, gi'u, gu'a,
gu'e, gu'i, gu'o, gu'u.
- We lose no expressive power. Every feature of the current language is
preserved, and the only small drawback is two syllables instead of one
for the forethought logical connectives.
- We gain two previously non-existing forms for the non-logical
connectives: afterthought bridi-tail, and forethought tanru.
- As a result, logical and non-logical connectives are equal, and there
is complete regularity between them. They could almost be put into the
same selmaho if it wasn't for a small difference in how {na} and {nai}
affect them.
The price to pay is that people who have already learned the complicated
system have to forget it and learn the simple one. (What? that's not
an unbiased way to say it? :) For those who are still learning, and for
the future generations, it would be a great gain.
If you are in favour of regularity and simplicity, now is the time to
speak up!
(I'm considering becoming a preacher.)
Jorge
(The fact that this proposal is presented while Colin is off the list,
and I suspect he would be against any changes, is purely coincidental.
The fact that Nick is also not connected is also coincidental. Really!)
ucleaar
don't stand a chance: Lojban Central policy is to fix only what
doesn't work, and changes for the sake of elegance and simplicity
are not countenanced. I gather that the policy has wide support,
though I find it rather a shame. If I had a vote, which I don't,
I'd support Jorge's proposals, unless there turned out to be good
language-internal arguments against them.
-----
And
Logical Language Group
> Lojban Central policy is to fix only what
> doesn't work, and changes for the sake of elegance and simplicity
> are not countenanced.
Correct, if you add ">present< policy". Loglan has historically suffered
from a surfeit of changes; people who learned one version found later versions
unintelligible, and there was never any formalized structure for change
management. LLG's baselining policy has been an attempt (perhaps too rigid)
to prevent this.
Note that "baselining" is not synonymous with "no change". The grammar, for
example, has had two baselines, separated by some 28 changes; the third
(hopefully final) baseline will have 33 more. But each has been carefully
documented and justified; I applaud Jorge's presentation.
> I gather that the policy has wide support,
> though I find it rather a shame.
If anything, the policy is more strongly supported by the off-Net Lojbanists.
> If I had a vote, which I don't,
> I'd support Jorge's proposals, unless there turned out to be good
> language-internal arguments against them.
You do have a vote, like every Lojbanist, and your vote is duly noted.
My personal views: I like Jorge's ideas, and if they had come just a little
sooner, I'd probably have fought for them. At this point, I'm reluctant to
throw away investment in various texts (both Lojban and English) to install
them. This paragraph doesn't represent the policy of LLG or its Board.
--
John Cowan sharing account <loj...@access.digex.net> for now
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Matthew Faupel
in a message sent on Mon, 7 Mar 1994 22:32:51 EST
I like the general idea of these proposals, especially the fact that it
removes four question words from Lojban (their large number and lack of
morphological relation to each other is one of my minor niggles about the
language). The (effective) reduction of all logical connectives to use JA
is quite neat too.
I have a number of reservations though:
1. Any change to the language, even if it is a compatible improvement, has
to be considered very carefully before being taken on board. There is
now a significant amount of published material in Lojban and thus a
significant amount of effort that has to be expended to update this
e.g. the textbook and the paper on logical connectives for a start.
2. The proposed changes involve the redefinition of the meaning of two
cmavo (ji and gu) which would thus render invalid any existing text with
these words in. This is a big change to make (more than a proposal that
just caused the previous words to become "archaic").
There is also one grammatical problem that I spotted:
JL: MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4:
JL: Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho JA
JL: RATIONALE:
JL: This one is just to round everything off. The question connective becomes
JL: regular.
Doing this means that there is no longer a question word for selma'o A
(which you haven't completely done away with). This would force people to
use the unelided forms of sumti when asking questions, e.g.:
do visku le nanmu ku ?ji le ninmu
I think that this also means that the answer ".e" (or any other A) would be
invalid, though since you can answer "joi" (of JOI) to a question "ji" (of
JA) at the moment, perhaps not.
On a slightly different tack:
JL: {guje}'s would be most similar to the current form, but {jegu}'s
JL: would be the logical choice. Then forethought connectives would all
JL: be of the same form, instead of today's variety:
JL: je gi .... gi .... (instead of ge ... gi ...)
JL: joigi .... gi .... (as is now joigi ... gi ...)
JL: je gu .... gu .... (instead of gu'e ... gi ...)
JL: joigu .... gu .... (no current equivalent)
If the proposals were adopted, I think I'd prefer gije, gijoi, guje, gujoi
etc. to match the existing .ije etc. (which can't be reversed in order).
This would mean having to change the existing joigi to gijoi though.
In summary I like the idea, but to support it I'd have to be convinced that
the vast majority of the Lojban community was in favour and willing
individually to put in effort to facilitate the change. Otherwise, any
language reform at this stage would inevitably delay work on other important
areas such as producing more written Lojban material.
What I think Lojban really needs is a professionally published textbook and
set of dictionaries to the same standard at least as that of available
Esperanto material. I am impressed by the quality and detail of what's
already been produced (and *love* the fact its available electronically) but
a book that Joe Public can buy from his bookshop is an important step along
the road for acceptance of a planned language. A4 loose leaf folders
wielded by starry-eyed believers are ten a penny :-) As I understand it,
work is underway on these things; I'd hate for it to be held up.
Terveisin,
Matthew
Jorge Llambias
> > You do have a vote, like every Lojbanist, and your vote is duly noted.
>
> I'm very pleased to have a vote, of course, but by what right do I
> have one? Presumably anyone is a Lojbanist who wants to be, and anyone
Your problem stems from a faulty egalitarian assumption. "Everybody has
a vote" in no way implies "everybody's vote has equal weight".
This is the tally on the proposal so far:
In number of votes: 4 in favour - 3 against.
In weight: 0.31 in favour - 300 against.
As you can see, you may vote safely without fearing that it will
count unduly. (The .01 contribution is my own vote, in case anyone
wants to know.)
The outcome of the vote is only to give a feeling to those who
will decide for what others think. You don't have to worry about
those without net access, I've been informed that they're conservatives
by default, so they are counted as well.
The above is of course tongue-in-cheek, but that's more or less how
it works, and how it should work. Your vote _is_ duly noted (as your
respondant says, I presume it was lojbab?) and will have an influence,
but it won't be the deciding vote. (All this is my interpretation, BTW,
not official policy or anything like that.)
The most likely outcome is that nothing will change, but one can
always hope.
Jorge
(There's an updated version of the proposal coming soon, because
there is a possible reason for one of the changes to be not
completely satisfactory. Watch this space for more details soon.)
pro...@summit.novell.com
Jorge asked for expressions of support or opposition. While I
would like to strongly endorse simplicity and regularity, not only for
my own use but to ease the learning curve for all the generations to
come, my recent inactivity (~3 yrs.) must significantly undercut my
support.
I am just sorry that these proposals were not made earlier.
With fewer speakers, a much smaller investment to erase, I would
have shouted long and hard that such simplicity and regularity are
supposed to be the hallmarks of a "logical language".
Of course, I have yet to read the counterarguments. They
might swing me around 180 degrees, or they might just strengthen
my resolve.
thank you all,
Arthur Protin
Arthur Protin <pro...@summit.novell.com>
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and
are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.
Jorge Llambias
> I have a number of reservations though:
They are valid, but I'll try to answer them:
> 1. Any change to the language, even if it is a compatible improvement, has
> to be considered very carefully before being taken on board. There is
> now a significant amount of published material in Lojban and thus a
> significant amount of effort that has to be expended to update this
> e.g. the textbook and the paper on logical connectives for a start.
I don't think updating the textbook and paper would be a big problem
(maybe because I'm not the author :), but I agree that the published real text
material should be kept as usable as possible. Since with the exeption of {gu},
no word would change its meaning, I think this is not a big concern. Old text
that used the old forms would still remain perfectly understandable. This
relates to your second point:
> 2. The proposed changes involve the redefinition of the meaning of two
> cmavo (ji and gu) which would thus render invalid any existing text with
> these words in. This is a big change to make (more than a proposal that
> just caused the previous words to become "archaic").
That's partly true. However, much of the proposal can be salvaged to take
that into account:
- {ji} does not change meaning, but its meaning is extended, requiring
the use of {ku} in some places where before could be elided. If wanted,
we may instead use {je'i} as the general question connective. Proposal 4
was just the final touch, but not essential. Even if {ji} is extended,
the old texts would require at most (but not always) a {ku} to make them
grammatical again, and the sense would be clear even if ungrammatical,
anyway.
- Instead of {gu}, use another cmavo for this function, perhaps {gu'i}.
However, I think the number of appearances of {gu} in real texts can
probably be counted with the fingers of one hand, and you'd have plenty
of fingers left. And the number of appearances of {gu} in its new
function, would be of the same order of magnitude. I found a single
appearance of {gu} in the texts of the ftp archive, and a single
appearance of a GUhA (strangely enough, not {gu'e} but {gu'o})
> JL: Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho JA
>
> Doing this means that there is no longer a question word for selma'o A
> (which you haven't completely done away with). This would force people to
> use the unelided forms of sumti when asking questions, e.g.:
>
> do visku le nanmu ku ?ji le ninmu
Yes, I left this unsaid on purpose, with the hope that noone would notice. :)
It's not really a problem. As you say, the question can still be asked using
the terminator. I think it's nicer if it's in selmaho JA, but if prefered we
can keep {je'i} for JA and {ji} for A.
> I think that this also means that the answer ".e" (or any other A) would be
> invalid, though since you can answer "joi" (of JOI) to a question "ji" (of
> JA) at the moment, perhaps not.
As you conclude, the answer is still valid.
By the way, {le nanmu .e le ninmu} is really {le nanmu ku .e le ninmu ku}.
The terminators need not be explicited, but they're there anyway. The question
{le nanmu ji le ninmu} is saying the same as {le nanmu ku ji le ninmu ku}.
> On a slightly different tack:
[...]
> If the proposals were adopted, I think I'd prefer gije, gijoi, guje, gujoi
> etc. to match the existing .ije etc. (which can't be reversed in order).
> This would mean having to change the existing joigi to gijoi though.
No, that can't be done. You're mixing the forethought and afterthought forms:
proposed: today's:
Afterthought:
.... je .... .... je .... for tanru
.... je .... .... .e .... for sumti
.... .ije .... .... .ije .... for bridi
.... gije .... .... gi'e .... for bridi-tails
.... joi .... .... joi .... for tanru
.... joi .... .... joi .... for sumti
.... .ijoi .... .... .ijoi .... for bridi
.... gijoi .... not possible for bridi-tails
Forethought:
je gi.... gi.... ge .... gi.... general
je gu.... gu.... gu'e .... gi.... for tanru
joi gi.... gi.... joi gi .... gi.... general
joi gu.... gu.... not possible for tanru
You can see that the right hand column has many more different forms for
the same type of function, and is even missing some. In addition, the
irregularity of the question cmavo doesn't show up in this table. If {ji}
was the only question cmavo, it would be completely regular.
> Terveisin,
>
> Matthew
Saludos,
Jorge
Logical Language Group
UC> it ought to be established beforehand to what extent Lojbab and John
UC> --More--
UC> Cowan are willing to carry them out.
And. Bob and John Cowan may be the most influential members of the community,
but we are committed to listen to that community. If there were extremely
strong demand from the net-based community, I would feel obligated to consult
with the off-net community, at least to determine whether there is any grounds
for consensus. In effect, what I know I hold, though, is about a half dozen
key non-netters whose default vote is 'no' to everything. No change will
be approved by a simple majority at this point, so that means that a real
strong consensus needs to emerge among the netters before it will carry
weight with the non-netters. If that strong consensus were to emerge, Cowan
and I would probably then decide how we 'vote', and that will carry much
weight with the non-netters if we believe a change is worthy enough to back
it at this late date, knowuing that we have to read and verify a couple of
megabytes of already-written langauge description before we can publish,
ot make sure that any adopted change is fully incorporated. For changes like
the Mad Proposals, I suspect this would cause major examination of the
existingf language description because the connectives are so strongly
findamental to the language as it is designed and has been actually used.
A simple global search-and-replace will not do.
lojbab
Logical Language Group
to be overcommitted.
lojbab
Logical Language Group
computer yet. (maybe surgery is in order %^)
You've never said whether it is at all likely, but involving the lady
in Lojban will make it more meaningful to you, and will let her be part
of at least one part of your on-line life. She is presumably more likely to
find Lojban interesting than your regular DP work, I would suspect.
lojbab
Jorge Llambias
> For changes like
> the Mad Proposals, I suspect this would cause major examination of the
> existingf language description because the connectives are so strongly
> findamental to the language as it is designed and has been actually used.
> A simple global search-and-replace will not do.
As far as Lojban text is concerned, a simple search-and-replace will suffice.
All proposals involve a simple replacement of one word for another. (The single
most common change would be {gi'e} to {gije}.)
As for the reference grammar papers, the connectives paper would be
greatly affected, and this is where most of the work involved would be.
The other papers may need very minor changes, mostly of the search-and-replace
type.
I haven't looked at the lessons lately, so I don't know how much updating they
would need. I will try to make an assessment in terms of megabytes. :)
Jorge
Jorge Llambias
considering the grammar papers, the lessons and the text in the ftp site.
The only significant work would be in the rewriting of the connectives paper.
I) For lojban text. This is based on the approx 260 kilobytes of text
from the ftp archive.
Change: To: Number of appearances:
gi'a gija 4
gi'e gije 235
gi'i giji 0
gi'o gijo 2
gi'u giju 3
gu'a...gi jagu...gu 0
gu'e...gi jegu...gu 0
gu'i...gi jigu...gu 0
gu'o...gi jogu...gu 1
gu'u...gi jugu...gu 0
ga jagi 2
ge jegi 17
ge'i jigi 0
go jogi 4
gu jugi 1
je'i ji 1
ji ku ji 0
Total number of changes: 270, or approximately one per kilobyte.
(Many of the files contain English translations as well, so
probably two per kilobyte is closer. It's mostly a mechanical
change anyway)
I don't know how much is the total amount of text in existence, but
updating it to these changes should be very easy.
II) The lessons.
GAs, GUhAs, GIhAs and {ji} are never mentioned in the lessons, although {gi'e}
is used five times in the Lojban version of section titles.
{je'i} is used in lessson02 to show the difference in pronunciation
between {je}, {jei} and {je'i}.
Thus, the only change the lessons would require is in five titles.
III) The grammar papers (other than the connectives paper).
GUhAs: appear in a paragraph in the "plgs" paper
GAs: a paragraph in the "mex" paper
a paragraph in the "negation" paper
an example in the "places" paper
GIhAs: mentioned in "places", "pro", "sumti" and "tense" papers
ji: one example in "plgs" paper
je'i: one example in "tense" paper
In addition, all the question connectives are treated in "text", so
that paragraph would need modification.
A few more changes than in the lessons, but it can probably be done in
a couple of hours.
IV) The connectives paper.
Many sections would have to be rewritten, but mostly to simplify it. I think
this is
the only real work that would be required.
I don't know if there is any other documentation that would require changes,
I don't think the brochure and introductory texts go into enough detail to
mention GAs, GIhAs and GUhAs, but in any case, it's easy to change if they do.
I don't think that the amount of work would be such a big problem, but maybe
I'm misssing some part.
Jorge
Nick NICHOLAS
access problems, thesis work, part-time work etc., this is unfortunately
likely to continue (I now finally realise why Ivan has been silent for so
long.)
Jorge, as he had said himself, will not be surprised with my reaction to the
proposals, which is the old "If it ain't broken" line. In more detail:
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1:
> Allow {je} everywhere that {joi} is allowed.
In truth, this couldn't hurt. It's an extension of the language rather than
a change (albeit not a motivated one unless the other proposals get adopted),
the problems with using {je} thus are already present wth {joi}, and it
adds a symmetry (in reserve) to the connective system. I support this. Jorge's
arguments convince me here.
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 1 part B:
> Eliminate selmaho GA.
Nope. Freeing lexeme GA? I'd see no plausible use to which lexemes that short
should be put to --- in the cut-throat world of cmavo, they'd be reserved
for something pretty important, and I'd say most such bases have been covered.
Plus of course, there's been too much usage of GA to justify this.
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2:
> Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}'s, and extend the grammar to allow {gijoi}'s
> in the same function of bridi-tail connection.
No. Almost all the cmavo that would have to be replaced in text are {gi'e},
and I think there are good intuitive, as well as conservative reasons, why
it should stay.
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 3:
> Eliminate {gu'e}'s and replace them by {guje}'s. Also allow {gujoi}'s
> to fullfill the same function for non-logical connectives.
Yes. This cmavo family is likely to be available to cmavo plundering, has
hardly ever been used, would introduce some joi/je symmetry where it can't
hurt, and does little violence to the language. I don't know what we'd use
for {gu} though, given I'd want GA to stay. I think this function will be
so seldom used, we could afford to use, say, {gu'i} instead.
> MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 4:
> Change {ji} from selmaho A to selamho JA
Nah.
Nick the unsurprising.
ucleaar
> > I'd support Jorge's proposals, unless there turned out to be good
> > language-internal arguments against them.
>
I'm very pleased to have a vote, of course, but by what right do I
have one? Presumably anyone is a Lojbanist who wants to be, and anyone
in the world who cares to vote in this debate may vote. But this
privileges people with net access (it takes more effot to vote
by snail mail). And also, it's all very well for me to support the
change (since I value Lojban more for its idealism than its practicality),
but I'm not going to have to be the one who has to redraft textbooks,
and so on. If Jorge's proposals really are to be put to the vote
it ought to be established beforehand to what extent Lojbab and John
Cowan are willing to carry them out.
-----
And
Logical Language Group
JL>
JL> > For changes like
JL> > the Mad Proposals, I suspect this would cause major examination of the
JL> > existingf language description because the connectives are so strongly
JL> > findamental to the language as it is designed and has been actually used.
JL> > A simple global search-and-replace will not do.
JL>
JL> As far as Lojban text is concerned, a simple search-and-replace will
JL> suffice. All proposals involve a simple replacement of one word for
JL> another. (The single most common change would be {gi'e} to {gije}.)
Yes and no. "zo gi'e" if in Lojban text would become invalid.
There might be changes to elidable terminators needed in a text.
There could be stylistic factors, including rhyme or rhythm in poetry.
In short, you would have to verify on a case by case basis, although what
you say may be true for the most part.
JL> As for the reference grammar papers, the connectives paper would be
JL> greatly affected, and this is where most of the work involved would be.
JL> The other papers may need very minor changes, mostly of the
JL> search-and-replace --More--
JL> type.
JL>
JL> I haven't looked at the lessons lately, so I don't know how much updating
JL> they would need. I will try to make an assessment in terms of megabytes.
JL> :)
I don't know about John, but I am a holistic writer. Changing a feature of
the language may change how I choose to teach it or refer to it in text,
including text that may only indirectly involve the feature in question.
Open questions in the grammar have tended to stop me dead in ALL work on the
language until resolved, not just forced me into working on a different
section.
lojbab
Jorge Llambias
the customary bounce from Nick's system but not my copy.
And (and this time it is him, I double-checked) says:
> > You do have a vote, like every Lojbanist, and your vote is duly noted.
>
> I'm very pleased to have a vote, of course, but by what right do I
> have one? Presumably anyone is a Lojbanist who wants to be, and anyone
Your problem stems from a faulty egalitarian assumption. "Everybody has
stevo
Remo Dentato
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
selpa'i
> though.
randomly run into this proposal now or does this have to do with the
recent thread about TAG connectives? I'm just wondering if this is
coincidence. :)
Lately, there has been more and more talk of GIJA (which it's usually
referred to by some, rather than "Mad Proposal", since, of course, its
proponents don't find it at all mad!). xorxes' "speak up now!" call
might finally be answered, albeit belatedly (20 years!).
I wonder how many more people are silently in favor of GIJA. My estimate
right now is that there are (at least) 7 people in favor, almost all of
which use Lojban regularly.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
selpa'i
> think it's an absolute nightmare :).
seem like "public opinion is [starting to be] strongly in favour".
> Of course it will need to be reflected in the formal grammar (which I
> believe is the PEG one at this point in time).
la gleki
Jonathan Jones
la .stivos. cu cusku di'eMay I ask what motivated you to say that just then? Did you just randomly run into this proposal now or does this have to do with the recent thread about TAG connectives? I'm just wondering if this is coincidence. :)
I whole-heartedly support this change. I'm not a regular user of Lojban,
though.
Lately, there has been more and more talk of GIJA (which it's usually referred to by some, rather than "Mad Proposal", since, of course, its proponents don't find it at all mad!). xorxes' "speak up now!" call might finally be answered, albeit belatedly (20 years!).
I wonder how many more people are silently in favor of GIJA. My estimate right now is that there are (at least) 7 people in favor, almost all of which use Lojban regularly.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
MorphemeAddict
la gleki
On Monday, April 29, 2013 5:27:11 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:
I came across it via la gleki on Facebook, but I couldn't figure out how to vote on it in Google Plus or Groups or wherever it is.
mu'o mi'e la stevon
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:10 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
la .stivos. cu cusku di'eMay I ask what motivated you to say that just then? Did you just randomly run into this proposal now or does this have to do with the recent thread about TAG connectives? I'm just wondering if this is coincidence. :)
I whole-heartedly support this change. I'm not a regular user of Lojban,
though.
Lately, there has been more and more talk of GIJA (which it's usually referred to by some, rather than "Mad Proposal", since, of course, its proponents don't find it at all mad!). xorxes' "speak up now!" call might finally be answered, albeit belatedly (20 years!).
I wonder how many more people are silently in favor of GIJA. My estimate right now is that there are (at least) 7 people in favor, almost all of which use Lojban regularly.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
Remo Dentato
Although one is always free to add http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/gije and it's friends to jbovlaste.
la gleki
remod
John E Clifford
From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Mad Proposals
John E Clifford
From: MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Mad Proposals
la gleki
On Monday, April 29, 2013 8:39:35 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:
Earlier this year, when I was working on criteria for a perfect loglang with constant references to the existing specimens, one of the few flaws in Lojban that emerged early in the study was the proliferation of connectives. For almost all the cases except the sentential ones (basic in logic, whatever may be the case in Lojban) there were clearer ways of handling the situation (some of them remarkably rare, by the way) than using a new connective. Some were even shorter. To be sure, these efficiencies were in a system being built from scratch, without the inertia of 20 years of development, but most look to be adaptable to existing Lojban with some inevitable backward loss.
From: MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Mad Proposals
I came across it via la gleki on Facebook, but I couldn't figure out how to vote on it in Google Plus or Groups or wherever it is.mu'o mi'e la stevon
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:10 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
la .stivos. cu cusku di'eMay I ask what motivated you to say that just then? Did you just randomly run into this proposal now or does this have to do with the recent thread about TAG connectives? I'm just wondering if this is coincidence. :)
I whole-heartedly support this change. I'm not a regular user of Lojban,
though.
Lately, there has been more and more talk of GIJA (which it's usually referred to by some, rather than "Mad Proposal", since, of course, its proponents don't find it at all mad!). xorxes' "speak up now!" call might finally be answered, albeit belatedly (20 years!).
I wonder how many more people are silently in favor of GIJA. My estimate right now is that there are (at least) 7 people in favor, almost all of which use Lojban regularly.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Betsemes
> right now is that there are (at least) 7 people in favor, almost all of
> which use Lojban regularly.
restrictive that're screaming for a change. If my vote has any
validity, I vote to favor this change. But Lojban has been ruled by a
dictator who opposes any kind of change, so I strongly doubt that
anything will change.
mu'o mi'e betsemes
la gleki
Jonathan Jones
mu'o mi'e betsemes
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Betsemes
> Robin is for quite a lot of changes. What is keeping changes from happening
> is not the BDFL, but the baseline.
is it just unnecessarily complex?
Ian Johnson
Whether the connective system is unnecessarily complex is *very* debatable. It is definitely redundant. The proposed system has significantly fewer words and yet the two can almost be interconverted by lexical substitution. Whether this way of doing things is truly "simpler", since it involves compounds replacing what used to be single words as well as {gi} having an enormous variety of uses, is another question entirely.