So whatever goals Loglan or Lojban had in past it's fine in present as it is.
Alchemists pursued what appeared to be nonexistent. Still they found a lot of gems during their research.
So whatever goals Loglan or Lojban had in past it's fine in present as it is.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/c29378ec-fcee-40c8-8c42-b0a807d85ddf%40googlegroups.com.
I would’ve agreed, but neither logic nor linguistics are alchemy.
Lojban has succeeded as a language that people use to communicate, but as a project, it fails to meet the requirements as it stands now. From a bird’s-eye view, this might not be so apparent, but then you realize that so many little things are left undecided, like {ce’u} filling, exact semantics of FIhO, some grammatical quirks like {.y bu} and {zo .y}, and the ever-present issue of overengineering…You could say that this is not a problem for Lojban, and I’d agree: not for Lojban as a language (or languages, since Lojban dialects tend to solve these matters more elegantly and therefore amount to an advancement, not a hindrance). But the overall project’s criteria have not yet been met, and thus it is still ongoing, which raises the question of why one should care to believe in its completion provided that it’s over 30 years since it was founded. I, for one, prefer to stake my bets on a loglang project whose development history — track record — and leadership do not foretell its eventual abandonment.— Mỉ Hỏashī jí kaOn Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 19:54, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
Alchemists pursued what appeared to be nonexistent. Still they found a lot of gems during their research.
So whatever goals Loglan or Lojban had in past it's fine in present as it is.
--
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.
This seems like a good time for the sorta annual reminder thaat Lojban as currently constituted is doomed to fail of its intended goals. The reason is simply that it is built upside down, so the proofs all have to run up hill. This pattern was set by JCB on day one, when he decided to work by adding logic to a speakable langauge (English), rather than extracting a speakable language from loigc (not FOPL, the then favorite, but, as should have been obvious already in the early days of Loglan, what is now called Higher Order Intensional Logic (HOIL)). We know this can be done because it is a given in (certain, e.g. Montague’s) linguistic theories that that is how languages actually come about.
Em sábado, 11 de abril de 2020 21:39:56 UTC+3, uakci escreveu:I would’ve agreed, but neither logic nor linguistics are alchemy.But spoken fopl or swh might be.(Controlled parsable semantically unambiguous English is a thing anyway and is in use unlike Lojban)
Lojban has succeeded as a language that people use to communicate, but as a project, it fails to meet the requirements as it stands now. From a bird’s-eye view, this might not be so apparent, but then you realize that so many little things are left undecided, like {ce’u} filling, exact semantics of FIhO, some grammatical quirks like {.y bu} and {zo .y}, and the ever-present issue of overengineering…You could say that this is not a problem for Lojban, and I’d agree: not for Lojban as a language (or languages, since Lojban dialects tend to solve these matters more elegantly and therefore amount to an advancement, not a hindrance). But the overall project’s criteria have not yet been met, and thus it is still ongoing, which raises the question of why one should care to believe in its completion provided that it’s over 30 years since it was founded. I, for one, prefer to stake my bets on a loglang project whose development history — track record — and leadership do not foretell its eventual abandonment.— Mỉ Hỏashī jí kaOn Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 19:54, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
Alchemists pursued what appeared to be nonexistent. Still they found a lot of gems during their research.
So whatever goals Loglan or Lojban had in past it's fine in present as it is.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/c29378ec-fcee-40c8-8c42-b0a807d85ddf%40googlegroups.com.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/6fe62be6-21b6-40b7-98b6-0f4e0072df47%40googlegroups.com.
And nevertheless the project lives on and the interest in it is non zero despite all its failures which don't seem to bother fluent speakers a lot.
I wouldn't say it's incomplete. I would just say it failed to meet its goals.
And nevertheless the project lives on and the interest in it is non zero despite all its failures which don't seem to bother fluent speakers a lot.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/8eb60e09-2aa3-4e14-b37e-f716ea06ecfe%40googlegroups.com.
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 22:45, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:I wouldn't say it's incomplete. I would just say it failed to meet its goals.Well, then that makes it a complete failure. :P
And nevertheless the project lives on and the interest in it is non zero despite all its failures which don't seem to bother fluent speakers a lot.I’m a fluent speaker and I’m bothered.
And I know many Lojbanists (most of which prefer to stay out of this community to preserve their sanity) who are bothered too.— Mi Hoashi etc.
--
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.
Em domingo, 12 de abril de 2020 00:24:22 UTC+3, uakci escreveu:On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 22:45, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:I wouldn't say it's incomplete. I would just say it failed to meet its goals.Well, then that makes it a complete failure. :P
And nevertheless the project lives on and the interest in it is non zero despite all its failures which don't seem to bother fluent speakers a lot.I’m a fluent speaker and I’m bothered.I mean if you are fluent you can't be bothered or else you are not fluent.
If the language works there is no problem.
Unless this is not what one was intending it to work.
And I know many Lojbanists (most of which prefer to stay out of this community to preserve their sanity) who are bothered too.— Mi Hoashi etc.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/8eb60e09-2aa3-4e14-b37e-f716ea06ecfe%40googlegroups.com.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/1137a1b7-cd6f-4c7c-b2cc-f38e8b4abb3f%40googlegroups.com.
I wasn’t faulting the founders and early workers, only pointing to the futility of continuing at the present. Things beyond FOPL were just not thought about even in graduate classes in the 50s and 60s, though they did take off rather rapidly then (I went to my first Monatague Conference in 1973 or so, with all the hot shots present and talking above everyone’s heads).
Some minor points: Montague’s quantification paper came out in 1960 or 61.
He did know mereology, courtesy of Twardowsky, but didn’t see its relevance.
He was a Tarski student, which put some limits on him (an antipathy for Quine, for exampe -- another possible source of mereology)
As I think (hope) I said, it may turn out that some Loglan will be right, it is just that it will. be impossible to prove it so by the present system. JCB, by the way, knew more logic than Lojbab (and got better grades, too), so we don’t want to be casting that as an excuse for a bad job at what he was doing. He just was a terrible experimental designer, though he did well in social psychology.Yeah, it took me a long time to figure out how Montague (et al) ought to fit into this scheme. I got caught up in the project and am bad at adding one and one. (I actually don’t think that Montague’s system itself is too relevant; it is the overall pattern that counts and that is largel Chomsky, which was available to JCB from early on.)
sob., 11 kwi 2020 o 23:45 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Em domingo, 12 de abril de 2020 00:24:22 UTC+3, uakci escreveu:On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 22:45, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:I wouldn't say it's incomplete. I would just say it failed to meet its goals.Well, then that makes it a complete failure. :P
And nevertheless the project lives on and the interest in it is non zero despite all its failures which don't seem to bother fluent speakers a lot.I’m a fluent speaker and I’m bothered.I mean if you are fluent you can't be bothered or else you are not fluent.Perhaps we're talking about different senses of the word 'bothered'. I'm not bothered because I speak a dialect which works around these issues. I could use the fossilized official dialect, but I'd risk many, many moments of frustration and encumberment.If the language works there is no problem.It doesn't really work that well, so there is a problem.
Unless this is not what one was intending it to work.I'm not sure I grok this sentence. As I've said before, there's the issue of overengineering. Sure, I can speak the bloated variants of Lojban, but why should I if there are better solutions at reach? (Zantufa, Toaq, Xorban are all examples of great non-overengineered work.)
And since Lojban is 35 years old and itself heavily borrowing from a 65-year-old language, it might be time to *remove* rather than *amend*. One example: solpahi's connective system works just as well as the current one — which may have had to be this way due to YACC's limitations — but offers less bloat.
So if we want simplicity
and straightforwardness, why don't we choose simplicity and straightforwardness if, again, it's within arm's reach?
— Mỉ Hỏashĩ jí ka.
And I know many Lojbanists (most of which prefer to stay out of this community to preserve their sanity) who are bothered too.— Mi Hoashi etc.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/8eb60e09-2aa3-4e14-b37e-f716ea06ecfe%40googlegroups.com.
--
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.
It doesn't really work that well, so there is a problem.If the thing is speakable then it works.
Unless this is not what one was intending it to work.I'm not sure I grok this sentence. As I've said before, there's the issue of overengineering. Sure, I can speak the bloated variants of Lojban, but why should I if there are better solutions at reach? (Zantufa, Toaq, Xorban are all examples of great non-overengineered work.)Some person may say: the first Hilbert operator is bi'u, the second one is lo'o'o'o'o'u and then another person would come and say: no, you misread Hilbert so that's how I think it should work and hereby I propose lo'o'o'o'ouI don't know what is better here and who are the judges.
Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it's stability.
And since Lojban is 35 years old and itself heavily borrowing from a 65-year-old language, it might be time to *remove* rather than *amend*. One example: solpahi's connective system works just as well as the current one — which may have had to be this way due to YACC's limitations — but offers less bloat.I feel no bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.
So if we want simplicityThen we should speak English. Or toki pona (depending on the meaning of the word "simple")
and straightforwardness, why don't we choose simplicity and straightforwardness if, again, it's within arm's reach?Because there are also aspiring students within arm's reach.
You learned something, good to you.
Now create a copy of the database and test your crud operations on it so that new learners can have python2 final version now and forever.
(snip)It doesn't really work that well, so there is a problem.If the thing is speakable then it works.But do we want to go with the bare minimum? Since we've already got it, why not advance?Unless this is not what one was intending it to work.I'm not sure I grok this sentence. As I've said before, there's the issue of overengineering. Sure, I can speak the bloated variants of Lojban, but why should I if there are better solutions at reach? (Zantufa, Toaq, Xorban are all examples of great non-overengineered work.)Some person may say: the first Hilbert operator is bi'u, the second one is lo'o'o'o'o'u and then another person would come and say: no, you misread Hilbert so that's how I think it should work and hereby I propose lo'o'o'o'ouI don't know what is better here and who are the judges.Time is the perfect judge. The Loglandic adage ‘Usage will decide’ shows this very well: some features surface and some sink to the bottom. But because of things like the Big Freeze and the covert stigmatization of deviations from the official dialect that still lasts, there's no room for that happening. Instead, those who have the good ideas have to restrict themselves to using them in their private circles because any attempt at bringing them into the official language are met with dissent and dismay.Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it's stability.Latin, too, is a stable language. But it's been long abandoned, for Romance languages had sprung about. The only reason some people learn Latin is for academic purposes, since it has a great share in the body of scientific works our world has produced.
Do you think Lojban deserves the sort of treatment that languages we already know are quite dead get?And since Lojban is 35 years old and itself heavily borrowing from a 65-year-old language, it might be time to *remove* rather than *amend*. One example: solpahi's connective system works just as well as the current one — which may have had to be this way due to YACC's limitations — but offers less bloat.I feel no bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.Languages change regardless of backward compatibility. No solution is truly future-proof; the only approach that guarantees success is to embrace change. Dismissing change on grounds of there being change in the first place is, in my opinion, hilariously wrong — then if you're so passionate about keeping the language in its current form, why not declare it to be a success and, most importantly, move on to more important things in our lives?
So if we want simplicityThen we should speak English. Or toki pona (depending on the meaning of the word "simple")English is far from simple, as you might have learned.Please don't just derail the conversation like that. We're talking about improving Lojban, not replacing it with Toki Pona or Georgian.and straightforwardness, why don't we choose simplicity and straightforwardness if, again, it's within arm's reach?Because there are also aspiring students within arm's reach.The aspiring students who are within arm's reach don't know what they're setting themselves up for.If I'd known I'd be joining a community like the one we have which gives the language in its current form this much phrase, I'd never have taken up the offer.You learned something, good to you.Please leave the condescending comments on your side of the screen.Now create a copy of the database and test your crud operations on it so that new learners can have python2 final version now and forever.Isn't that… like… the opposite of what I want and the exact statement of what you want?
— Mỉ Hỏashī jí ka.
Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it's stability.Latin, too, is a stable language. But it's been long abandoned, for Romance languages had sprung about. The only reason some people learn Latin is for academic purposes, since it has a great share in the body of scientific works our world has produced.Latin is a live language btw.As the CLL puts it creation of new words is encouraged.
I feel no bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.Languages change regardless of backward compatibility. No solution is truly future-proof; the only approach that guarantees success is to embrace change. Dismissing change on grounds of there being change in the first place is, in my opinion, hilariously wrong — then if you're so passionate about keeping the language in its current form, why not declare it to be a success and, most importantly, move on to more important things in our lives?I don't consider any notion of "success" for Lojban as being important. No teleology sorry.
Sure. You are trying to change and change and change the language so that new learners will never catch up
(snip)Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it's stability.Latin, too, is a stable language. But it's been long abandoned, for Romance languages had sprung about. The only reason some people learn Latin is for academic purposes, since it has a great share in the body of scientific works our world has produced.Latin is a live language btw.As the CLL puts it creation of new words is encouraged.(see (1))I feel no bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.Languages change regardless of backward compatibility. No solution is truly future-proof; the only approach that guarantees success is to embrace change. Dismissing change on grounds of there being change in the first place is, in my opinion, hilariously wrong — then if you're so passionate about keeping the language in its current form, why not declare it to be a success and, most importantly, move on to more important things in our lives?I don't consider any notion of "success" for Lojban as being important. No teleology sorry.Then why are you engaging in a discussion about Lojban failing? If it doesn’t matter to you, then you might as well stop caring and, as I’ve suggested before, move on.
> > Isn't that… like… the opposite of what I want and the exact statement of what you want?Sure. You are trying to change and change and change the language so that new learners will never catch up(ad (1))I see this as the manifestation of the ultimate hypocrisy. We are encouraged to create vocabulary, and vocabulary is a core part of the language, but no grammar proposals for you! I don’t understand why you don’t have this visceral reaction of disgust when people add ‘new and foreign’ zi’evla like {inde}, {mlauca}, {kaipti}, {uinmo} — yet, they too are something a learner will have to catch up with.
However, any attempts to introduce changes to the language which simplify it and remedy all the overengineering are always turned down by the ‘official’ language ‘lobby’. This causes the language to drift away from what people actually use — slowly but surely — and I really am sure that this will turn against you.
Here, let me try and make a point. Ever come upon The Glasgow Conversation of 1995? One of the conversants happens to use a certain word that the other isn’t familiar with, and so the conversation devolves into a mini-argument about those ‘bloody new cmavo’. (I don’t suspect that they were totally serious with it, but that’s how it went in the end.) This is a pinnacle of Lojban ‘cancel culture’, and do you know what cmavo was the offender here? It’s {bu’u}. Now would you imagine that a cmavo that’s used all the time nowadays had people against it when it was being first introduced?
Pretend English is our language of interest. Every time somebody says ‘there’s reasons’ instead of ‘there are reasons’, as a fellow English speaker you MUST lash out at them and tell them they belong to the deepest strata of hell. In other words, if you have opinions about what the language should be like, you MUST make it clear that those are the correct ones. Good luck making friends with this sort of attitude.
Also, Dotside.All this is proof that over the entire history of language, people have bitched, bitch, and will be bitching about how we ought to speak language X (where X may be English or Lojban). But you pretend that there’s no change and no change is needed and one can get by without any change at all. The only future I foresee for you and the people who share your mindset is that you’ll stay where you are with your Lojban v1.0 Final Release while others move on. I’ve already moved on, and so have the most prominent Lojbanists of the last decade. I’m pretty sure most of them still think of themselves as Lojbanists; however, the toxic attitude that’s so prominent among the members of the community ultimately makes them want to quit engaging in it, at least within the official venues like the IRC channel.
I don’t know if I have much more to say. But most importantly, y’all’s utter inability to ‘read the room’ and understand the needs of those who’ve had the largest impact on the community will eventually make it run dry.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/f1e41358-15f6-469a-9623-11725854d112%40googlegroups.com.
Then why are you engaging in a discussion about Lojban failing? If it doesn’t matter to you, then you might as well stop caring and, as I’ve suggested before, move on.I initially replied to pycyn. That whatever the goals were they are not important.So I'm engaging in it just to say that the topic is of little importance.
I see this as the manifestation of the ultimate hypocrisy. We are encouraged to create vocabulary, and vocabulary is a core part of the language, but no grammar proposals for you! I don’t understand why you don’t have this visceral reaction of disgust when people add ‘new and foreign’ zi’evla like {inde}, {mlauca}, {kaipti}, {uinmo} — yet, they too are something a learner will have to catch up with.That's stability. Lojban is declared that way. New words are encouraged. See the CLL. New learners will know that if they read the CLL. They will be ready for it.
Whatever you/I/other fluent or non fluent speakers decide to change in the CLL will only lead to the community dying out.
I can see one important exception to it: mistypes in English text. I haven't witnessed any antagonism in fixing them.
As for fixing internal contradictions or adding new parts of the language as being official (sublanguages, dictionary, translations) that in fact leads only to the feeling of "I will never make this". If Lojban were some programming framework supported by some la mikro softo company we could ignore that and say: learn this ever-changing thing or leave it.
However, any attempts to introduce changes to the language which simplify it and remedy all the overengineering are always turned down by the ‘official’ language ‘lobby’. This causes the language to drift away from what people actually use — slowly but surely — and I really am sure that this will turn against you.What I think is of little importance too.
I may speak xorlo or another crazy dialect. Thats my choice. New learners have none. They must first reach fluency.
If existing fluent speakers don't stop tinkering seriously soon there will be fewer and fewer new learners coming (some assert this is already happening).
Here, let me try and make a point. Ever come upon The Glasgow Conversation of 1995? One of the conversants happens to use a certain word that the other isn’t familiar with, and so the conversation devolves into a mini-argument about those ‘bloody new cmavo’. (I don’t suspect that they were totally serious with it, but that’s how it went in the end.) This is a pinnacle of Lojban ‘cancel culture’, and do you know what cmavo was the offender here? It’s {bu’u}. Now would you imagine that a cmavo that’s used all the time nowadays had people against it when it was being first introduced?That was before Lojban got into "release" state. But even from the CLL 1.0 standpoint addition of some "su'oi" cmavo is okay, the CLL allows for that. I would mildly argue that such additions make learning harder. I wouldn't recommend adding such new words into tutorials.
However, e.g. every 5 years some official organization could say " here is the new version of the language, instead of print "hello" you should now say print("hello") ". This would obviously make the community lose those who bought the previous edition of the Book but at the same time give some sense of bettering over time. But given that no such committee is going to appear anytime soon (lack of technical and organisational skills) this is just my fantasy that can be safely ignored. Better to stick to the only edition of the language.
Pretend English is our language of interest. Every time somebody says ‘there’s reasons’ instead of ‘there are reasons’, as a fellow English speaker you MUST lash out at them and tell them they belong to the deepest strata of hell. In other words, if you have opinions about what the language should be like, you MUST make it clear that those are the correct ones. Good luck making friends with this sort of attitude.English is not prescriptive.
All this is proof that over the entire history of language, people have bitched, bitch, and will be bitching about how we ought to speak language X (where X may be English or Lojban). But you pretend that there’s no change and no change is needed and one can get by without any change at all. The only future I foresee for you and the people who share your mindset is that you’ll stay where you are with your Lojban v1.0 Final Release while others move on. I’ve already moved on, and so have the most prominent Lojbanists of the last decade. I’m pretty sure most of them still think of themselves as Lojbanists; however, the toxic attitude that’s so prominent among the members of the community ultimately makes them want to quit engaging in it, at least within the official venues like the IRC channel.That's fine. They can leave.
Maybe Lojban has some inner hidden goal and Lojban taught them something so that they don't need either the language or the community anymore.
And that's great since without tinkering more space will be provided for new learners to come.
I don’t know if I have much more to say. But most importantly, y’all’s utter inability to ‘read the room’ and understand the needs of those who’ve had the largest impact on the community will eventually make it run dry.You put it right. I don't care of those who already learnt Lojban.
Oh, my! I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted. I learn (I’ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.
My immediate question is, “Given that Lojban no longer strives for monparsing, what reason is there to continue working on it or learning it?”
In the past, all the grotesqueries of Lojban morphology and grammar could be justified as necessary for the Great Goal. But now that that Goal is gone, they merely constitute needless complexities that make learning the language even harder. Stripping away the 47 kinds of commas (and God forbid you should use the wrong one, even though it no longer makes a crucial difference) (’47’ is merely a ridiculously large number, not meant to be accurate) would make the language easier to learn and do that systematically for all the word classes would eventually get to something manageable. But there would still be no reason to learn it, because it doesn’t do anything that English (etc.) doesn’t do, nor do it in a novel and revealing way.If I counted right, there are at least nine version of Lojban floating around with adherents.
Thehe winnowing process is presumably already at work and some of these are close to languages of one grumpy guy in a garret. Some have people in LLG offices (big whoop!). Some have decent sized (say 12) groups here and there.
What can any of these offer to newbies or possible converts to get them to join? Nothing, really. So, they will all fade away (the LLG section running on on inertia).
I recommend that all of you take a weekend off and learn toki pona (maybe start Friday night and leave a little time over breakfast on Monday). You will have a new language with a purpose (you can choose from half a dozen at least). And you don’t lose the rights to constantly snipe at tiny infractions by your colinguals and to get into abstruse debate about details of grammar. After all, I am in the middle of it.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Where can I find out more about these other dialects of Lojban and the supposed problems and their solutions?stevo
Oh, my! I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted.
I learn (I’ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.
My immediate question is, “Given that Lojban no longer strives for monparsing, what reason is there to continue working on it or learning it?”
In the past, all the grotesqueries of Lojban morphology and grammar could be justified as necessary for the Great Goal. But now that that Goal is gone, they merely constitute needless complexities that make learning the language even harder. Stripping away the 47 kinds of commas (and God forbid you should use the wrong one, even though it no longer makes a crucial difference) (’47’ is merely a ridiculously large number, not meant to be accurate) would make the language easier to learn and do that systematically for all the word classes would eventually get to something manageable.
But there would still be no reason to learn it, because it doesn’t do anything that English (etc.) doesn’t do, nor do it in a novel and revealing way.
If I counted right, there are at least nine version of Lojban floating around with adherents. The winnowing process is presumably already at work and some of these are close to languages of one grumpy guy in a garret. Some have people in LLG offices (big whoop!). Some have decent sized (say 12) groups here and there. What can any of these offer to newbies or possible converts to get them to join? Nothing, really. So, they will all fade away (the LLG section running on on inertia).
I recommend that all of you take a weekend off and learn toki pona (maybe start Friday night and leave a little time over breakfast on Monday). You will have a new language with a purpose (you can choose from half a dozen at least). And you don’t lose the rights to constantly snipe at tiny infractions by your colinguals and to get into abstruse debate about details of grammar. After all, I am in the middle of it.
niedz., 12 kwi 2020 o 13:02 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> napisał(a):Then why are you engaging in a discussion about Lojban failing? If it doesn’t matter to you, then you might as well stop caring and, as I’ve suggested before, move on.I initially replied to pycyn. That whatever the goals were they are not important.So I'm engaging in it just to say that the topic is of little importance.Sounds oxymoronic to me.
I see this as the manifestation of the ultimate hypocrisy. We are encouraged to create vocabulary, and vocabulary is a core part of the language, but no grammar proposals for you! I don’t understand why you don’t have this visceral reaction of disgust when people add ‘new and foreign’ zi’evla like {inde}, {mlauca}, {kaipti}, {uinmo} — yet, they too are something a learner will have to catch up with.That's stability. Lojban is declared that way. New words are encouraged. See the CLL. New learners will know that if they read the CLL. They will be ready for it.They will also be ready for the inevitable, which is that there are commonly used grammatical structures which the CLL wilfully omits.Whatever you/I/other fluent or non fluent speakers decide to change in the CLL will only lead to the community dying out.*Your* community.And it's time I made a small correction. It's been a great mistake to call you a community. Communities stick together, but this make-pretend community is entrenched in disputes. The departure of a great member of a community typically comes off as worthy of grievance, but this community has seen giants go.
Communities aren't the sort of places that come and go; you come and stay. Communities are something people contribute to through willpower and effort and their precious man-hours (and woman-hours too), but the only experience I've seen radiate from those who've tried and failed to incorporate themselves in the Lojbanic 'community' is one that's based on full-on unreciprocation. In a well-functioning community, people leave when they think they've done their dues; in a pathological community like this one, people leave because there's so much work to do that they're barred from doing.I can see one important exception to it: mistypes in English text. I haven't witnessed any antagonism in fixing them.Sure, spend effort on what matters least. Just to keep the *air* of business.
As for fixing internal contradictions or adding new parts of the language as being official (sublanguages, dictionary, translations) that in fact leads only to the feeling of "I will never make this". If Lojban were some programming framework supported by some la mikro softo company we could ignore that and say: learn this ever-changing thing or leave it.So you've jumped on the programming language train… oh boy do I have a lot to say in this matter.Programming languages do improve.
Java — a language that's close to relic status — has recently seen additions like lambdas, closures, anonymous classes…
Every programming language which does not wish to be yanked off the mainstream train of thought tries its best to include the essential parts of what people want or need or can find in other places. We don't need to force people to use Functional Programming concepts, but we might as well leave those parts in so the ones who want it can have it and be happy.Have you ever heard about Elm? It, too, is governed by a man who believes he can exercise absolute power. He, too, says things like ‘if you don't do X the Y way, then why are you using our product?’. All in the name of ‘being opinionated’. But we can be opinionated and permissive; we can foster diversity while maintaining a strong baseline; we can be descriptive without going all out. It can all be done, and the way strong Open Source projects are led can tell us a lot about what we're doing wrong. I predict that Elm is going to get forked away from very soon; Lojban, with its despotic attitude and little room for variation, is going to be moved away from. It's happening, and once it's reached full impetus, you won't be able to stop it.However, any attempts to introduce changes to the language which simplify it and remedy all the overengineering are always turned down by the ‘official’ language ‘lobby’. This causes the language to drift away from what people actually use — slowly but surely — and I really am sure that this will turn against you.What I think is of little importance too.You say that, but you're very strong in asserting your opinions. If you think you should bow to the Founding Fathers of the language and to the demigods which preside in the committee (whatever its form of presentation is), then you're doing this in vain. Language is to free thought, not enslave it.
I may speak xorlo or another crazy dialect. Thats my choice. New learners have none. They must first reach fluency.I don't have a problem with treating CLL Lojban as ‘baseline’ Lojban. In fact, I wrote a little essay on the matter around two years ago [1], and although it's hard for me to gauge the reactions, I can tell you that calling the ‘official dialect’ the ‘base(line) dialect’ doesn't do said dialect any harm — quite the opposite: it empowers people who want to experiment to experiment, and gives this base dialect an incentive to develop — slowly and rationally.
If existing fluent speakers don't stop tinkering seriously soon there will be fewer and fewer new learners coming (some assert this is already happening).See above. And the ‘tinkerers’ (as you've taken to calling them) aren't at fault; you're just getting a taste of your own medicine.Here, let me try and make a point. Ever come upon The Glasgow Conversation of 1995? One of the conversants happens to use a certain word that the other isn’t familiar with, and so the conversation devolves into a mini-argument about those ‘bloody new cmavo’. (I don’t suspect that they were totally serious with it, but that’s how it went in the end.) This is a pinnacle of Lojban ‘cancel culture’, and do you know what cmavo was the offender here? It’s {bu’u}. Now would you imagine that a cmavo that’s used all the time nowadays had people against it when it was being first introduced?That was before Lojban got into "release" state. But even from the CLL 1.0 standpoint addition of some "su'oi" cmavo is okay, the CLL allows for that. I would mildly argue that such additions make learning harder. I wouldn't recommend adding such new words into tutorials.You know what makes learning harder? Tons upon tons of cmavo which nobody really uses and which could be phrased in simpler terms. Irregularities in gismu frames.
Many, many internal distinctions like PU vs. VI vs. ZI vs. ZEhA vs. FAhA vs. BAI. And if your point is that the CLL is a definitive source of knowledge about what Lojban 1.0 the forever version should look like, then what about xorlo? This starts to feel like I'm trying to persuade a biblical absolutism into rejecting the absoluteness of the Bible. And if that's the case, the best approach is to walk away and leave them be; many people have done that so far. It's a telling sign.
However, e.g. every 5 years some official organization could say " here is the new version of the language, instead of print "hello" you should now say print("hello") ". This would obviously make the community lose those who bought the previous edition of the Book but at the same time give some sense of bettering over time. But given that no such committee is going to appear anytime soon (lack of technical and organisational skills) this is just my fantasy that can be safely ignored. Better to stick to the only edition of the language.Python 3 was released in 2008, and the official deprecation date for Python 2 was announced to be 2020. Do you really think that 12 years isn't enough to hop over?
You're making a moot point: in Python 3, `print` is made into a regular function; previously, it was a keyword. This reduces complexity, which is good — it regularizes the treatment of `print` (what's so special about it? why can't my procedure be made into a keyword?). The Python community has encouraged switching over to v3 for a long time, yielding such tools as 2to3.All this shows that change can be allowed, even if you prefer to keep it slow. Today's language leaders' standpoint is not to attempt any change, even as it wheezes past them.Pretend English is our language of interest. Every time somebody says ‘there’s reasons’ instead of ‘there are reasons’, as a fellow English speaker you MUST lash out at them and tell them they belong to the deepest strata of hell. In other words, if you have opinions about what the language should be like, you MUST make it clear that those are the correct ones. Good luck making friends with this sort of attitude.English is not prescriptive.Languages themselves can't be descriptive or prescriptive; people and organizations and dictionaries are. For example, Polish is overseen by the RJP (the Polish Language Council), Finnish — by KOTUS (Institute for the Languages of Finland), and so on. But they're not to serve themselves, but the people which actually use the languages. If a change becomes mainstream, the RJP will vote itself over to its side.It's important to remember that institutions like the LLG are not allowed to patronize us or to tell us that ‘this is how we do things because it's how we do them’.
It's the people who have the right to choose — many have chosen against the absolutist bullshit. And that's why your community shrinks day by day.
All this is proof that over the entire history of language, people have bitched, bitch, and will be bitching about how we ought to speak language X (where X may be English or Lojban). But you pretend that there’s no change and no change is needed and one can get by without any change at all. The only future I foresee for you and the people who share your mindset is that you’ll stay where you are with your Lojban v1.0 Final Release while others move on. I’ve already moved on, and so have the most prominent Lojbanists of the last decade. I’m pretty sure most of them still think of themselves as Lojbanists; however, the toxic attitude that’s so prominent among the members of the community ultimately makes them want to quit engaging in it, at least within the official venues like the IRC channel.That's fine. They can leave.You don't have the right to control who's around. Definitely not if they're not misbehaving. So far, the reasons for leaving the Lojban community have been weariness and helplessness. And you can't expect to deserve to be treated with due respect if people are ostracized and stigmatized.
Maybe Lojban has some inner hidden goal and Lojban taught them something so that they don't need either the language or the community anymore.They don't need the bullcrap that surrounds both. That's what it is. Many such people make these decisions against what their hearts tell them, but sanity is more important than appeasement.And that's great since without tinkering more space will be provided for new learners to come.There is space; there's little incentive. The halls have been decked with spikes.I don’t know if I have much more to say. But most importantly, y’all’s utter inability to ‘read the room’ and understand the needs of those who’ve had the largest impact on the community will eventually make it run dry.You put it right. I don't care of those who already learnt Lojban.Dismissal is not the right path to take. As I said above, this *will* turn against you.
The people united will never be defeated.~ ~ ~Perhaps it's time to do the right thing — fork.
Somebody (maybe me myself, who knows) should do God's work and rethink the grammar, rethink the vocab, rethink the approach. Because if you stick to being stuck and you're stuck in being stuck, then the people watching who have enough integrity to step back and distance themselves a little so they're not dragged into the pit will leave you be. And that's what you want — to be left alone. But a committee doesn't exist with a community, and since the community has pretty much dispersed, the committee has failed to serve it.I'm not going to drag this pointless rowing about for any longer; it's Easter and I'm supposed to rejoice with my family. All I can say is: if you are sure you know what you're doing and you're so adamant to keep at it, then power to you. However, it's you who'll face the consequences, and hurting others is one such consequence.
— Mỉ Hỏashī jí ka.
Oh, my! I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted. I learn (I’ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.
My immediate question is, “Given that Lojban no longer strives for monparsing, what reason is there to continue working on it or learning it?” In the past, all the grotesqueries of Lojban morphology and grammar could be justified as necessary for the Great Goal. But now that that Goal is gone, they merely constitute needless complexities that make learning the language even harder. Stripping away the 47 kinds of commas (and God forbid you should use the wrong one, even though it no longer makes a crucial difference) (’47’ is merely a ridiculously large number, not meant to be accurate) would make the language easier to learn and do that systematically for all the word classes would eventually get to something manageable. But there would still be no reason to learn it, because it doesn’t do anything that English (etc.) doesn’t do, nor do it in a novel and revealing way.
If I counted right, there are at least nine version of Lojban floating around with adherents. The winnowing process is presumably already at work and some of these are close to languages of one grumpy guy in a garret. Some have people in LLG offices (big whoop!). Some have decent sized (say 12) groups here and there. What can any of these offer to newbies or possible converts to get them to join? Nothing, really. So, they will all fade away (the LLG section running on on inertia).I recommend that all of you take a weekend off and learn toki pona (maybe start Friday night and leave a little time over breakfast on Monday). You will have a new language with a purpose (you can choose from half a dozen at least). And you don’t lose the rights to constantly snipe at tiny infractions by your colinguals and to get into abstruse debate about details of grammar. After all, I am in the middle of it.
Em domingo, 12 de abril de 2020 17:07:28 UTC+3, uakci escreveu:niedz., 12 kwi 2020 o 13:02 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> napisał(a):Then why are you engaging in a discussion about Lojban failing? If it doesn’t matter to you, then you might as well stop caring and, as I’ve suggested before, move on.I initially replied to pycyn. That whatever the goals were they are not important.So I'm engaging in it just to say that the topic is of little importance.Sounds oxymoronic to me.pycyn started with the goal of Lojban (logic, monoparsing...) But the discussion shifted the topic a lot since then.
I see this as the manifestation of the ultimate hypocrisy. We are encouraged to create vocabulary, and vocabulary is a core part of the language, but no grammar proposals for you! I don’t understand why you don’t have this visceral reaction of disgust when people add ‘new and foreign’ zi’evla like {inde}, {mlauca}, {kaipti}, {uinmo} — yet, they too are something a learner will have to catch up with.That's stability. Lojban is declared that way. New words are encouraged. See the CLL. New learners will know that if they read the CLL. They will be ready for it.They will also be ready for the inevitable, which is that there are commonly used grammatical structures which the CLL wilfully omits.Whatever you/I/other fluent or non fluent speakers decide to change in the CLL will only lead to the community dying out.*Your* community.And it's time I made a small correction. It's been a great mistake to call you a community. Communities stick together, but this make-pretend community is entrenched in disputes. The departure of a great member of a community typically comes off as worthy of grievance, but this community has seen giants go.You mean tinkerers?
Communities aren't the sort of places that come and go; you come and stay. Communities are something people contribute to through willpower and effort and their precious man-hours (and woman-hours too), but the only experience I've seen radiate from those who've tried and failed to incorporate themselves in the Lojbanic 'community' is one that's based on full-on unreciprocation. In a well-functioning community, people leave when they think they've done their dues; in a pathological community like this one, people leave because there's so much work to do that they're barred from doing.I can see one important exception to it: mistypes in English text. I haven't witnessed any antagonism in fixing them.Sure, spend effort on what matters least. Just to keep the *air* of business.The business is done when certain goals are complete. This is not the goal of the language of course but the documentation.
As for fixing internal contradictions or adding new parts of the language as being official (sublanguages, dictionary, translations) that in fact leads only to the feeling of "I will never make this". If Lojban were some programming framework supported by some la mikro softo company we could ignore that and say: learn this ever-changing thing or leave it.So you've jumped on the programming language train… oh boy do I have a lot to say in this matter.Programming languages do improve.Usually in releases. When backward incompatible then it's clearly asserted so. Lojban community hasn't been aiming at such procedures.
Java — a language that's close to relic status — has recently seen additions like lambdas, closures, anonymous classes…additions
Every programming language which does not wish to be yanked off the mainstream train of thought tries its best to include the essential parts of what people want or need or can find in other places. We don't need to force people to use Functional Programming concepts, but we might as well leave those parts in so the ones who want it can have it and be happy.Have you ever heard about Elm? It, too, is governed by a man who believes he can exercise absolute power. He, too, says things like ‘if you don't do X the Y way, then why are you using our product?’. All in the name of ‘being opinionated’. But we can be opinionated and permissive; we can foster diversity while maintaining a strong baseline; we can be descriptive without going all out. It can all be done, and the way strong Open Source projects are led can tell us a lot about what we're doing wrong. I predict that Elm is going to get forked away from very soon; Lojban, with its despotic attitude and little room for variation, is going to be moved away from. It's happening, and once it's reached full impetus, you won't be able to stop it.However, any attempts to introduce changes to the language which simplify it and remedy all the overengineering are always turned down by the ‘official’ language ‘lobby’. This causes the language to drift away from what people actually use — slowly but surely — and I really am sure that this will turn against you.What I think is of little importance too.You say that, but you're very strong in asserting your opinions. If you think you should bow to the Founding Fathers of the language and to the demigods which preside in the committee (whatever its form of presentation is), then you're doing this in vain. Language is to free thought, not enslave it.Those demigods already paralyzed my activity.
I may speak xorlo or another crazy dialect. Thats my choice. New learners have none. They must first reach fluency.I don't have a problem with treating CLL Lojban as ‘baseline’ Lojban. In fact, I wrote a little essay on the matter around two years ago [1], and although it's hard for me to gauge the reactions, I can tell you that calling the ‘official dialect’ the ‘base(line) dialect’ doesn't do said dialect any harm — quite the opposite: it empowers people who want to experiment to experiment, and gives this base dialect an incentive to develop — slowly and rationally.I have no problem with that. But I dohave a problem when newcomers are being said "the CLL is obsolete". Who are you to say that? What do you present in exchange? Nothing as clifford just said.
If existing fluent speakers don't stop tinkering seriously soon there will be fewer and fewer new learners coming (some assert this is already happening).See above. And the ‘tinkerers’ (as you've taken to calling them) aren't at fault; you're just getting a taste of your own medicine.Here, let me try and make a point. Ever come upon The Glasgow Conversation of 1995? One of the conversants happens to use a certain word that the other isn’t familiar with, and so the conversation devolves into a mini-argument about those ‘bloody new cmavo’. (I don’t suspect that they were totally serious with it, but that’s how it went in the end.) This is a pinnacle of Lojban ‘cancel culture’, and do you know what cmavo was the offender here? It’s {bu’u}. Now would you imagine that a cmavo that’s used all the time nowadays had people against it when it was being first introduced?That was before Lojban got into "release" state. But even from the CLL 1.0 standpoint addition of some "su'oi" cmavo is okay, the CLL allows for that. I would mildly argue that such additions make learning harder. I wouldn't recommend adding such new words into tutorials.You know what makes learning harder? Tons upon tons of cmavo which nobody really uses and which could be phrased in simpler terms. Irregularities in gismu frames.No one is supposed to learn all the words of English or all the keywords of Java.
Many, many internal distinctions like PU vs. VI vs. ZI vs. ZEhA vs. FAhA vs. BAI. And if your point is that the CLL is a definitive source of knowledge about what Lojban 1.0 the forever version should look like, then what about xorlo? This starts to feel like I'm trying to persuade a biblical absolutism into rejecting the absoluteness of the Bible. And if that's the case, the best approach is to walk away and leave them be; many people have done that so far. It's a telling sign.As I said it's a nice sign. If you learned Lojban and want something else create something else. That's fine.
However, e.g. every 5 years some official organization could say " here is the new version of the language, instead of print "hello" you should now say print("hello") ". This would obviously make the community lose those who bought the previous edition of the Book but at the same time give some sense of bettering over time. But given that no such committee is going to appear anytime soon (lack of technical and organisational skills) this is just my fantasy that can be safely ignored. Better to stick to the only edition of the language.Python 3 was released in 2008, and the official deprecation date for Python 2 was announced to be 2020. Do you really think that 12 years isn't enough to hop over?If there had been developers in Lojbanistan... There were none except for rlpowell who released the CLL 1.1
You're making a moot point: in Python 3, `print` is made into a regular function; previously, it was a keyword. This reduces complexity, which is good — it regularizes the treatment of `print` (what's so special about it? why can't my procedure be made into a keyword?). The Python community has encouraged switching over to v3 for a long time, yielding such tools as 2to3.All this shows that change can be allowed, even if you prefer to keep it slow. Today's language leaders' standpoint is not to attempt any change, even as it wheezes past them.Pretend English is our language of interest. Every time somebody says ‘there’s reasons’ instead of ‘there are reasons’, as a fellow English speaker you MUST lash out at them and tell them they belong to the deepest strata of hell. In other words, if you have opinions about what the language should be like, you MUST make it clear that those are the correct ones. Good luck making friends with this sort of attitude.English is not prescriptive.Languages themselves can't be descriptive or prescriptive; people and organizations and dictionaries are. For example, Polish is overseen by the RJP (the Polish Language Council), Finnish — by KOTUS (Institute for the Languages of Finland), and so on. But they're not to serve themselves, but the people which actually use the languages. If a change becomes mainstream, the RJP will vote itself over to its side.It's important to remember that institutions like the LLG are not allowed to patronize us or to tell us that ‘this is how we do things because it's how we do them’.True.
It's the people who have the right to choose — many have chosen against the absolutist bullshit. And that's why your community shrinks day by day.All this is proof that over the entire history of language, people have bitched, bitch, and will be bitching about how we ought to speak language X (where X may be English or Lojban). But you pretend that there’s no change and no change is needed and one can get by without any change at all. The only future I foresee for you and the people who share your mindset is that you’ll stay where you are with your Lojban v1.0 Final Release while others move on. I’ve already moved on, and so have the most prominent Lojbanists of the last decade. I’m pretty sure most of them still think of themselves as Lojbanists; however, the toxic attitude that’s so prominent among the members of the community ultimately makes them want to quit engaging in it, at least within the official venues like the IRC channel.That's fine. They can leave.You don't have the right to control who's around. Definitely not if they're not misbehaving. So far, the reasons for leaving the Lojban community have been weariness and helplessness. And you can't expect to deserve to be treated with due respect if people are ostracized and stigmatized.I am myself ostracized by the LLG.
Maybe Lojban has some inner hidden goal and Lojban taught them something so that they don't need either the language or the community anymore.They don't need the bullcrap that surrounds both. That's what it is. Many such people make these decisions against what their hearts tell them, but sanity is more important than appeasement.And that's great since without tinkering more space will be provided for new learners to come.There is space; there's little incentive. The halls have been decked with spikes.I don’t know if I have much more to say. But most importantly, y’all’s utter inability to ‘read the room’ and understand the needs of those who’ve had the largest impact on the community will eventually make it run dry.You put it right. I don't care of those who already learnt Lojban.Dismissal is not the right path to take. As I said above, this *will* turn against you.My role is of little importance. Once again, I don't care of fluent speakers. They are free to go. Newcomers need help.
The people united will never be defeated.~ ~ ~Perhaps it's time to do the right thing — fork.Please, create a new name for it. LoCCan3 of whatever
Somebody (maybe me myself, who knows) should do God's work and rethink the grammar, rethink the vocab, rethink the approach. Because if you stick to being stuck and you're stuck in being stuck, then the people watching who have enough integrity to step back and distance themselves a little so they're not dragged into the pit will leave you be. And that's what you want — to be left alone. But a committee doesn't exist with a community, and since the community has pretty much dispersed, the committee has failed to serve it.I'm not going to drag this pointless rowing about for any longer; it's Easter and I'm supposed to rejoice with my family. All I can say is: if you are sure you know what you're doing and you're so adamant to keep at it, then power to you. However, it's you who'll face the consequences, and hurting others is one such consequence.It's a volunteer work. I know what I'm doing.
P.S. Sorry for not answering to all the replies. Some looked to me like containing some harsh language.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:55 AM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <loj...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Oh, my! I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted. KI learn (I’ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.
Do you have evidence that the Lojbanist community as a whole has abandoned the goal of "monoparsing" (which I take to mean self-segregating morphology and unambiguous grammar)?
Em domingo, 12 de abril de 2020 18:01:38 UTC+3, Mike S. escreveu:On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:55 AM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <loj...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Oh, my! I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted. KI learn (I’ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.Do you have evidence that the Lojbanist community as a whole has abandoned the goal of "monoparsing" (which I take to mean self-segregating morphology and unambiguous grammar)?I have one. When I asked about inconsistencies in the PEG grammar I was given an answer that some semantic parser should do that job. However, no such parser was envisioned at that time. So yes, it's avoiding the topic of not abandoning it at all.
Even within ordinary AST system there are no discussions of internal grammar of UI or fu'e. It's a topic for geeks maybe that's the reason.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 12:13 PM Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
Em domingo, 12 de abril de 2020 18:01:38 UTC+3, Mike S. escreveu:On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:55 AM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <loj...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Oh, my! I merely meant to drop a friendly reminder that Lojban could not achieve its goal as presently constituted. KI learn (I’ve been away a while) Lojbanists (of some sort or other or maybe all) no longer car about its primary goal, monoparsing, but are concerned to make a viable language out of the scraps.Do you have evidence that the Lojbanist community as a whole has abandoned the goal of "monoparsing" (which I take to mean self-segregating morphology and unambiguous grammar)?I have one. When I asked about inconsistencies in the PEG grammar I was given an answer that some semantic parser should do that job. However, no such parser was envisioned at that time. So yes, it's avoiding the topic of not abandoning it at all.This is your evidence that monoparsing has been abandoned? If monoparsing were abandoned, no one would be writing PEG grammars in the first place.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CACtk4%2BDa8JWbX47ZhwPzR%2BeJg-Q-B1VykPYCuAr6Asq7P0OLXA%40mail.gmail.com.
Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> writes:
> I have one. When I asked about inconsistencies in the PEG grammar I was
> given an answer that some semantic parser should do that job. However, no
What "inconsistencies" exist in the PEG grammar?
uakci <ciuak...@gmail.com> writes:
> really uses and which could be phrased in simpler terms. Irregularities in
> gismu frames. Many, many internal distinctions like PU vs. VI vs. ZI vs.
To what irregularities in gismu frames do you refer?
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb1u3HfzkLk%3DWK3OM%3D1qxa9kMMmJvzbm_cKH7h%2BpEAdyaA%40mail.gmail.com.
Hello, Mike. I was wondering if you had links to the late Mr. May's original morphology proposal from the '80s. The material on his Ceqli website is pretty disorganized and patchy.
I have been working for a while on simplifying loglan morphology without sacrificing phonological averageness. That is, I believe that the loglans (including Ceqli) are all unnecessarily stilted in their morphological design, resulting in languages that appear more alien, and put more cumbersome limits on word shape, than they have to.
Thanks,H.T.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CAEMeEWFjCQF_xO3_yvTkb5u%2BYtfRtXykRyU_kPy3KaeRPKjugA%40mail.gmail.com.