Lojban In General

Lojban In General


Philosophical differences.

posts: 66 United States

I have spoken at great length with various people that frequent
the Lojban IRC channel, and it has been recommended that I draft out
issues that I have with various things in Lojban (which have been so
adequately described by broca as "not obvious mistakes, but rather philosophical differences").

Before anybody jumps down my throat, the whole "baseline" speech, and
every other counter-argument to date, has been made about why
absolutely nothing must be changed and the gismu list is handed down
from the very gods themselves. I understand that gismu space is not
meant to cover absolutely every concept known to man. That being said,
I would like to express my issues with a few words, and I welcome
responses which include either supporting statements or reasons (other
than the ones previously mentioned) why I may just be
confused/misguided/wrong/misunderstanding things/etc.


1. vlagi

It does not make sense to have a word which specifically refers to the
external female genitalia when we have "plibu". fetplibu and nakplibu
are perfectly adequate, in my opinion, for referring to the respective
genitalia of either sex. We have plibu, ganti, and pinji, which are all
non-gender-specific until we make a lujvo/tanru out of them, so we
ought to be consistent.


2. xagji

I've had this discussion at great length with people in the chat, over
and over again, until everybody pretty much wanted me to go die in a
fire. There is absolutely no way to describe "sleepy", and while my
personal usage of the word may differ from others, it doesn't change
the lack of such a concept in Lojban. tatpi means tired, as in
physically fatigued, and one must rest a moment before continuing any
activities. xagji means one is hungry, and must eat before continuing
any activities. taske means one is thirsty, and must drink before
continuing activities. None of these imply need, as there are plenty of
people that get hungry without needing to eat, there are plenty of
people that get thirsty without needing to drink, etc. This also does
not imply desire as there are plenty of people that desire to eat
regardless of hunger. Keeping this in mind, how do we express that one
is sleepy? One does not necessarily need sleep, as outlined in previous
examples related to food/drink/rest/etc., and one does not necessarily
desire sleep, as also outlined in previous examples. Therefore, we have
several concepts that have a unique value in common, which I could
inadequately describe as an intrinsic physical need, separate from the
desires of the mind, and separate from what constitutes actual need. I
would like either of the following to happen: two new gismu be created
to encompass 'sleep-hunger' (sleepiness) and 'sex-hunger'(there is no
non-slang word in English), which still leaves room for things like
air-hunger (again, no English word), exercise-hunger, and possibly even
something like entertainment-hunger (boredom, I suppose), OR that the
meaning of xagji be changed to reflect this concept, which can then be
used as lujvo/tanru to express a very large variety of concepts, such
as boredom, hunger, sleepiness, or any number of things that do not
necessarily imply need or desire, which would manifest as ctixagji
(hunger), sipxagji (sleepiness), glexagji, seljbexagji (a biological
desire to give birth, commonly refered to as the 'ticking biological
clock' in colloquial English), pinxyxagji (thirsty), pincyvi'ixagji
(which just sounds completely horrible in standard Lojban, but
considering the proposed change would mean something more along the
lines of the English phrase "I have to go pee."). None of these imply
an active and concious desire, nor are they always a need (I find
myself constantly being hungry and not wanting to eat, nor to I
actively need to eat for at least 24 hours after any given meal).


3. Cultural gismu.

Just fix it already.



4. Computer words.

Face it, we're pretty much all huge nerds. We need words for "window",
"website", "internet", "software", "hardware", and various other
things. We have computer and monitor, but not much else, and if we are
to put this language into full use as quickly as possible, I see this
as a dire necessity over most anything else.



So those are my philosophical problems with modern Lojban.
(Before you bite at problem number 2, plenty of people have already
pointed out, as the devil's advocate, that I may be making a wholly
unnecessary distinction that can be covered by need/desire, but this brings culture into play, and this concept may be wholly unique to my own personal culture. In my own concept of the universe, needing to eat, wanting to eat, and being hungry are different concepts.)

Disclaimer: I make no assertion that I am, in any way, flawless in my logic or beliefs. I admit that I could be severely wrong or mistaken about things, that I may just not have an adequate enough grasp of the language to know that there are ways to express these things, or that I am just wholly retarded and simply a barking lunatic that is annoying a good lot of people that have better things to do than listen to me.

I greatly appreciate your time, and look forward to your lovely and helpful responses.




posts: 953

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 05:46:55AM -0700, Lindar Greenwood wrote:
> I would like to express my issues with a few words, and I welcome
> responses which include either supporting statements or reasons (other
> than the ones previously mentioned) why I may just be
> confused/misguided/wrong/misunderstanding things/etc.

The overarching reason why I think neither the BPFK nor the wider Lojban community needs to worry about this is that the language is designed to be extensible. It is impossible to specify everything a person could ever want to talk about, so we provide the possibility of building new words, lujvo and fu'ivla, exactly like natural languages do.

> ... We have plibu, ganti, and pinji, which are all
> non-gender-specific until we make a lujvo/tanru out of them, so we
> ought to be consistent.

As for consistency in gismu space: consistent with what? To paraphrase Borges, we can't agree on how the universe is structured, so we have no hope of coming up with a semantic system that has no room for improvement.

"But," I can hear you shouting, "why not make *these* few changes? They're necessary!" Well, there we come to the issue that you didn't want to talk about, namely stability and the inviolable baseline. Bear with me for a moment ...

Lojban exists because people wanted a Loglan that they could speak. People who are investing effort in learning something, anything, hate it when you change things so that what they learnt is no longer valid. The Loglan Institute's ready willingness to change the language out from under learners' feet is legendary in these circles. So we have always been very strongly motivated to not change the language if we could possibly help it.

Now this is, of course, the perspective of somewhat of an oldtimer. (I started learning Lojban after the CLL was published.) I would be greatly upset by having to re-learn the language, but I know that some people that have been along for longer than I speak very good Lojban, even though they learned the TLI version first. So it's possible to learn both versions.

I wonder what the opinion of the millennial Lojbanists are on stability? (If you first heard of Lojban after 2002, I'm talking to you.) Do you personally consider it important?

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
I owe, I owe - so off to work I go.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 381

In a message dated 7/20/2009 09:31:15 Eastern Daylight Time, arj@nvg.org
writes:


> I wonder what the opinion of the millennial Lojbanists are on stability?
> (If you first heard of Lojban after 2002, I'm talking to you.) Do you
> personally consider it important?
>

I do. I'm still having trouble with xorlo.

stevo

posts: 493

I assume that you meant to say "(If you first heard of lojban *before* 2002,
I'm...".

I heard of lojban after 2002 so I'm much more open to changes, but I can
empathize with the more veteran jbopre. Life would be good if the only
changes ever made were dot-side and xorlo IMO.

- Luke Bergen


On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 7/20/2009 09:31:15 Eastern Daylight Time, arj@nvg.orgwrites:
>
>
> I wonder what the opinion of the millennial Lojbanists are on stability?
> (If you first heard of Lojban after 2002, I'm talking to you.) Do you
> personally consider it important?
>
>
>
> I do. I'm still having trouble with xorlo.
>
> stevo

posts: 71


correction is more important to me than absolute stability. i like xorlo. and other changes necessary are welcome.

seryf







---Original Message---
From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Mon, Jul 20, 2009 7:36 am
Subject: lojban Re: Philosophical differences.









In a message dated 7/20/2009 09:31:15 Eastern Daylight Time, arj@nvg.org writes:






I wonder what the opinion of the millennial Lojbanists are on stability? (If you first heard of Lojban after 2002, I'm talking to you.) Do you personally consider it important?






I do. ?I'm still having trouble with xorlo.



stevo



posts: 92

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 05:46:55AM -0700, Lindar Greenwood wrote:
> > I would like to express my issues with a few words, and I welcome
> > responses which include either supporting statements or reasons (other
> > than the ones previously mentioned) why I may just be
> > confused/misguided/wrong/misunderstanding things/etc.
>
> The overarching reason why I think neither the BPFK nor the wider Lojban
> community needs to worry about this is that the language is designed to be
> extensible. It is impossible to specify everything a person could ever want
> to talk about, so we provide the possibility of building new words, lujvo
> and fu'ivla, exactly like natural languages do.
>
> > ... We have plibu, ganti, and pinji, which are all
> > non-gender-specific until we make a lujvo/tanru out of them, so we
> > ought to be consistent.
>
> As for consistency in gismu space: consistent with what? To paraphrase
> Borges, we can't agree on how the universe is structured, so we have no hope
> of coming up with a semantic system that has no room for improvement.
>
> "But," I can hear you shouting, "why not make *these* few changes? They're
> necessary!" Well, there we come to the issue that you didn't want to talk
> about, namely stability and the inviolable baseline. Bear with me for a
> moment ...
>
> Lojban exists because people wanted a Loglan that they could speak. People
> who are investing effort in learning something, anything, hate it when you
> change things so that what they learnt is no longer valid. The Loglan
> Institute's ready willingness to change the language out from under
> learners' feet is legendary in these circles. So we have always been very
> strongly motivated to not change the language if we could possibly help it.
>
> Now this is, of course, the perspective of somewhat of an oldtimer. (I
> started learning Lojban after the CLL was published.) I would be greatly
> upset by having to re-learn the language, but I know that some people that
> have been along for longer than I speak very good Lojban, even though they
> learned the TLI version first. So it's possible to learn both versions.
>
> I wonder what the opinion of the millennial Lojbanists are on stability?
> (If you first heard of Lojban after 2002, I'm talking to you.) Do you
> personally consider it important?


Count me (2004) as someone who considers stability important. The language,
while imperfect, does not seem to be fatally flawed. Continuous adjustment
makes old texts obsolete, & perhaps discourages learners (& teachers). ...
perfect ... enemy ... good.

Regarding Lindar's points nos. 1 & 3: If you don't like these words, you
don't have to use them. It's legitimate to say {fetplibu} and {ra'i la
espanias}. I can't stand cultural gismu/fu'ivla myself, even if I use them
in texts for community consumption.

Regarding no. 2: You make a distinction between "intrinsic physical need" &
"actual need" — {nitcu} covers both of those.

Regarding no. 4: If these words were direly needed, they would have been
coined by now. I'm surprised they haven't been, but whatever, they will be.
We may all be huge nerds, but that does not mean that our personal
priorities are the language's priorities. The community we have now is not
the community we have always had or will always have.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

posts: 3588

de'i li 20 pi'e 07 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Lindar Greenwood .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> 1. vlagi
>
> It does not make sense to have a word which specifically refers to the
> external female genitalia when we have "plibu".
.skamyxatra

I fail to see what benefit there is from removing "{vlagi}" that outweighs the
problems that would result from spontaneously dropping a perfectly cromulent
word from the language.

> 2. xagji
>
> I've had this discussion at great length with people in the chat, over
> and over again, until everybody pretty much wanted me to go die in a
> fire. There is absolutely no way to describe "sleepy", and while my
> personal usage of the word may differ from others, it doesn't change
> the lack of such a concept in Lojban.

"{mlita'i}" is a perfectly suitable translation for "sleepy" as I use it.
Exactly what sense of "sleepy" are you claiming is lacking?

> tatpi means tired, as in physically fatigued, and one must rest a moment
> before continuing any activities. xagji means one is hungry, and must eat
> before continuing any activities. taske means one is thirsty, and must drink
> before continuing activities. None of these imply need ...

They *do* imply need, at least in the Lojbanic sense; the x3 of "{nitcu}" (or
the x2 of "{sarcu}") can be used to describe what the alleviation of the need
is a prerequisite for.

> ... as there are plenty of people that get hungry without needing to eat,
> there are plenty of people that get thirsty without needing to drink, etc.
> This also does not imply desire as there are plenty of people that desire to
> eat regardless of hunger. Keeping this in mind, how do we express that one is
> sleepy? One does not necessarily need sleep, as outlined in previous examples
> related to food/drink/rest/etc., and one does not necessarily desire sleep,
> as also outlined in previous examples.

If you need sleep but do not desire it, you can say "{siptcu}." If you desire
sleep but do not need it, you can say "{sipydji}." If you neither need nor
desire sleep, how can you be considered sleepy?

> Therefore, we have several concepts that have a unique value in common, which
> I could inadequately describe as an intrinsic physical need, separate from
> the desires of the mind, and separate from what constitutes actual need.

How is intrinsic physical need distinct from "actual need"? Even if you are
not at the point of "If I don't take care of this right now, I'll die," your
body can still require things in order to improve performance and/or alleviate
pain, and the purpose of this need can be specified by the x3 of "{nitcu}."

> 3. Cultural gismu.
>
> Just fix it already.

Yes, they need to be fixed, but how? Should we add more cultural {gismu} or
remove cultural {gismu}? Should we completely reorganize the cultural {gismu}
into a set of generic cultures and words for subdividing them into hierarchies
in a way that will be seen as completely racist by our grandchildren? Should
we just leave it as it is and stick with flimsy excuses for why they shouldn't
or don't need to be changed? If you're complaining about a lack of a solution,
perhaps you should suggest a solution of your own.

> 4. Computer words.
>
> Face it, we're pretty much all huge nerds. We need words for "window",
> "website", "internet", "software", "hardware", and various other
> things.

That's what {lujvo} are for. Use them.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
mi citka loi cidjrspageti fi'o sanmi lo cersai


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 3588

de'i li 20 pi'e 07 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Arnt Richard Johansen .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> I wonder what the opinion of the millennial Lojbanists are on stability? (If
> you first heard of Lojban after 2002, I'm talking to you.) Do you personally
> consider it important?
.skamyxatra

I consider it important, but not as important as fixing mistakes. At this
point, I think a good way to handle the evolution of Lojban would be to split
it into two "branches": a main branch that continues to use the language as
described in the CLL and as it is currently being used, with no conscious
changes made, and one "experimental" branch controlled by the BPFK that is
changed & optimized constantly in order to address current and future problems.
If & when the experimental branch becomes stable and has had input from
everyone in the community, it can replace the main branch as the next official
version of Lojban; until then, the branches remain separate and the BPFK's
actions have no effect on the community as a whole. To those who only use the
main branch, this eliminates worry about things changing overnight, while those
who want to see things changed can get them changed and experiment with the
results with others freely.

The most obvious problem with this approach is not knowing what branch or
version of Lojban a person is using. Perhaps we could start by devising a
means of specifying a version number in text, e.g., "{sei repinomoi
jboterfarvi}."

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
ko kutygau le do skami jbipru bo vreji


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Minimiscience<minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 3. Cultural gismu.
>>
>> Just fix it already.
>
> Yes, they need to be fixed, but how?  Should we add more cultural {gismu} or
> remove cultural {gismu}?  Should we completely reorganize the cultural {gismu}
> into a set of generic cultures and words for subdividing them into hierarchies
> in a way that will be seen as completely racist by our grandchildren?  Should
> we just leave it as it is and stick with flimsy excuses for why they shouldn't
> or don't need to be changed?  If you're complaining about a lack of a solution,
> perhaps you should suggest a solution of your own.

Alternatively, work within the baseline for as long as we have it
(note that post-gafyfantytei the language is not going to be changed
by fiat, but rather the LLG will be serving a descriptive function as
the language evolves; at that point in the hopefully-nearish future
everyone gets to vote for obsoleting vlagi by not using it, for
generalizing xagji by using it in ways that currently call for a
"pe'a", and so forth) by using fu'ivla for cultures and simply
ignoring the gismu. It won't make them go away, but it lets you
express all cultures using words of equal centralness to the language.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

mi'e la selckiku


On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Lindar

Greenwood<lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 1. vlagi


I wouldn't have made a gismu for vlagi, not because vlagi aren't
important, but because it's not especially productive of lujvo.
That's a much deeper sin of the gismu list: It completely conflates
the purposes of creating a basic vocabulary and creating a library of
combining forms, and thus does both terribly.

The word exists though, not just in old vocabulary lists but in a lot
of human brains. This conversation is only spreading it to more. I
don't see how you could wage a successful campaign against it.


> There is absolutely no way to describe "sleepy",


There's no way to get to much of anything worthwhile by uncolored,
arithmatic addition of gismu meanings. That's why lujvo are allowed
to have their own characters, derived from nowhere except whim. Lujvo
have new meanings. Their constituent gismu are mnenomic hints to that
meaning, or vague guideposts to the uninitiated. The full meaning is
not derivable from them.

Lojban already has various words, "tatpi" and "siptcu" and "sipydji"
and so forth, which could translate "sleepy" in various senses. Based
on the usage I've seen, the word which would usually most closely
translate "sleepy" would be "sipydji"-- which I agree relates somewhat
strangely to "djica", but on the other hand it is a gorgeous

  • sounding* word, which I would guess factors into its popularity.


It's true of course that the gismu don't necessarily provide a very

  • good* set of mnenomics. There could be a lot more choices than -tcu

and -dji, but instead what we have is a lot of words for household
objects and body parts and wtf-ever. What I propose broadly to
respond to this (utterly unfixable) overall situation is what I have
called "cimjvo", cilmo zei lujvo, moist lujvo, lujvo which are wet
with meaning, or to put it more concretely: lujvo with an elided
"-pev-". (The lujvo "cimjvo" is of course self-describing, for
instance.)

I think it would be a good idea to use the flavored words we have for
various specific needs, like taske and xagji, as additional bases for
families of words about wanting and needing. We don't need a full
family of lujvo for different kinds of actual non-metaphorical thirst!
In theory that sounds cool, but I am having trouble even thinking of
more than one type of thirst. Um za'e mlitaske vs za'e tcetaske, but
that hardly counts. Uh how about za'e xaltaske. I'm a little za'e
jisrytaske right now?! So, as I've just demonstrated, either -taske
can be metaphorical, or it's only for making words that are very
silly. :-)


> 3. Cultural gismu.
>
> Just fix it already.


The gismu can't be scrubbed out of existence. It's not like we can so
thoroughly get rid of "merko" that we could go ahead and make a new
word "merko" that means something else. But we could make them less
used, if there were well-known cultural fu'ivla for the cultures we
usually use gismu for. I still use "merko" because I don't know of
any potential replacements that anyone would recognize. I'm willing
to champion new cultural fu'ivla, if someone comes up with good ones,
but it will take some time. Fighting the established gismu when
there's not yet a replacement won't help at all.


> 4. Computer words.
>
> Face it, we're pretty much all huge nerds. We need words for "window",
> "website", "internet", "software", "hardware", and various other things. We
> have computer and monitor, but not much else, and if we are to put this
> language into full use as quickly as possible, I see this as a dire
> necessity over most anything else.


There have been a lot of words for internet. I think the ones I've
seen most often are probably "samseltcana" (clear enough, but I'd
think it would mean "network" in general) and "samclupa" (which seems
really weird to me, but it's out there). There are some old words for
website that I forget. Oh I remember an old fu'ivla for web,
"skamrxuebe" or something. There's a few words about programming,
like sampla, samselpla, sambau. Recently in a conversation I had with
Daniel one of us came up with "samsmacu", mouse. Of course we could
use a lot more. What you got? Hit us! :-)


mu'o


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 84

Regarding the various {nitcu} for sleepy/hungry/thirsty/horny/etc/etc.
I've been thinking about this a bit whilst discussing it with Lindar on
IRC. You can drive yourself nuts slicing up this semantic pie (or any
one, for that matter).

On one hand, why should we have separate gismu for all of these? They
all reflect the same basic concept: physical need. So we can conflate
all these, and that will be so much more consistent, right?

On the other hand, they are all so very *different*, how can we even
consider conflating them? How can we even express them with just
{nitcu} or {djica}? Hunger and thirst are will-controlled. It is
possible to starve yourself to death, and simply refuse to eat/drink
(people have done it). And if there's no food around, your body won't
go trying to eat sand or rocks against your will. But air-hunger is
different: even if there's no air around, your body will sooner or later
take the decision out of your hands and try to breathe, even if it means
flooding your lungs with water. Lindar mentioned that sleepiness is on
a smaller scale than "need"... When I'm driving down the highway
straining to keep my eyes open, knowing full well that falling asleep
behind the wheel can be fatal, there is nothing small or mild whatsoever
about needing to sleep. That's another one where the body will take the
decision out of your hands after a while. Sleep is also different in
that hunger/thirst/air-hunger all require something that might or might
not be available in the world; sleep doesn't. Compare also the needs to
urinate/defecate. All those require from the world is space (at least
some tiny bit of which is usually available), and your body will also
take care of these whether or not you want to, if it goes on long
enough. Hunger and thirst don't build monotonically; air-hunger does...
Libido is so much more complex than mere hunger or thirst, it hardly
bears comparing. cf also the "need" to scratch an itch, or to cough or
sneeze... And so on...

My point in arguing with Lindar is not that Lindar is wrong, but rather
that Lindar is not right. That is to say, there are *so many* ways of
looking at just about any semantic range like this, is it really
sensible to say that Lojban shouldn't do it *this* way but must do it

  • that* way because that one is "right"? Obviously the standard has to

pick *some* way, and then all alternate views will perforce have to make
use of lujvo, etc., and we can probably agree that some ways of looking
at some things are fairly uncontroversially worse than most, but it's a
_very_ tough sell, as I see it, that these gismu (or others being
discussed) are actually "broken." There are just too many "right" ways.

~mark


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 66 United States

>What I propose broadly to
>respond to this (utterly unfixable) overall situation is what I have
>called "cimjvo", cilmo zei lujvo, moist lujvo, lujvo which are wet
>with meaning, or to put it more concretely: lujvo with an elided
>"-pev-". (The lujvo "cimjvo" is of course self-describing, for
>instance.)
>I think it would be a good idea to use the flavored words we have for
>various specific needs, like taske and xagji, as additional bases for
>families of words about wanting and needing.

This seems like an absolutely fantastic idea.


Also, on the question of "if you don't need to sleep and you don't want to sleep, then how are you sleepy?", it seems like such an elementary concept, but I guess it doesn't cross all cultures. Need is an entirely subjective matter, warranted by circumstance. One does not -need- to eat lunch, but it is beneficial, and usually desired.

I honestly think that this concept is one solidly embedded in a culture that doesn't exist outside of myself, and those that don't already understand it just aren't going to understand it. I'm pretty much going to give up on this crusade of mine and say "small-need" is adequate enough unless this cimjvo idea takes off.

>I consider it important, but not as important as fixing mistakes. At this
>point, I think a good way to handle the evolution of Lojban would be to split
>it into two "branches": a main branch that continues to use the language as
>described in the CLL and as it is currently being used, with no conscious
>changes made, and one "experimental" branch controlled by the BPFK that is
>changed & optimized constantly in order to address current and future problems.

This sounds like an absolutely FANTASTIC idea as it can be rapidly evolved amongst the small user-base in the IRC chat while remaining mutually intelligible due to only semantic differences. Consider practically any massively-multiplayer online role-playing game, such as City of Heroes/Villains, in that they have a beta server wherein they impliment experimental patches to be hard-tested by actual users. They throw it on to a live beta server with the disclaimer that it isn't going to always work, and terrible things may happen, so participate at your own risk. I think that it would be lovely to have a group meant specifically to stress-test words with a big yellow decal on the whole 'dialect' stating "WARNING: If you speak this language you run the risk of sounding like a complete fool and/or being misunderstood by the general Lojban community.".

I shall promote this beta-Lojban (norlojban?) idea with violent zealotry until I am burned at the stake as a witch. =P




posts: 381

In a message dated 7/21/2009 01:46:17 Eastern Daylight Time,
lindarthebard@yahoo.com writes:


> I shall promote this beta-Lojban (norlojban?) idea with violent zealotry
> until I am burned at the stake as a witch. =P
>

I'll start collecting the firewood. Anybody got a nice, big stake?

stevo

posts: 3588

de'i li 20 pi'e 07 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Lindar Greenwood .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> Also, on the question of "if you don't need to sleep and you don't want to
> sleep, then how are you sleepy?", it seems like such an elementary concept,
> but I guess it doesn't cross all cultures. Need is an entirely subjective
> matter, warranted by circumstance. One does not -need- to eat lunch, but it
> is beneficial, and usually desired.
.skamyxatra

The thing about subjectivity is that, once you accept some arbitrary standard
or frame of reference (emphasis on "arbitrary"), it becomes objective. You do
not *need* to eat lunch for the sake of lunch, but you may need to each lunch
in order to fulfill some purpose, such as controlling your blood sugar or not
offending your host; within the context of this purpose, lunch can be said to
be necessary. You could say that since you can always devise some reason to
eat lunch, no matter how unjustified that reason may be (By fattening yourself
up, you ensure that you will be among the first to be eaten when the aliens
come and so will not live to witness the horrors that follow), you *always*
have to eat lunch; however, in practical usage, "need" always carries some
implied purpose which is reasonable (and usually deducible) given the current
context, and this purpose will most likely allow you to not need lunch every so
often. Getting back to the original question, "sleepy" usually refers to
either a desire or a need for sleep, where the need is a physiological need
that will hinder activity in some way if not satisfied, and if you do not need
sleep under this frame of reference, and you do not desire sleep, how can you
be considered sleepy?

To summarize: Think about the x3 of "{nitcu}" for a while.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
re po'o da xanka jai se djica fa loi nanba .e loi carce terjvi
sei sa'a la .iuvenalis. cusku


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 22

2009/7/21 <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>

>> I shall promote this beta-Lojban (norlojban?) idea with violent zealotry until I am burned at the stake as a witch. =
>
> I'll start collecting the firewood.  Anybody got a nice, big stake?

.ie mi ca bevri le ba'e xamgu mudykamju va'o lonu do curmi lonu mi
zvati le nu jelri'i .i.a'u ma bevri le sacki


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 162

Stela Selckiku wrote:
> It's true of course that the gismu don't necessarily provide a very
> *good* set of mnenomics. There could be a lot more choices than -tcu
> and -dji, but instead what we have is a lot of words for household
> objects and body parts and wtf-ever. What I propose broadly to
> respond to this (utterly unfixable) overall situation is what I have
> called "cimjvo", cilmo zei lujvo, moist lujvo, lujvo which are wet
> with meaning, or to put it more concretely: lujvo with an elided
> "-pev-". (The lujvo "cimjvo" is of course self-describing, for
> instance.)

Bravo on the creation. Have you defined it in jbovlaste?

> or to put it more concretely: lujvo with an elided "-pev-".

"pev" is only needed where it is pragmatically necessary to distinguish
between a non-metaphorical and a metaphorical interpretation of a word.
If there was a non-metaphorical concept written as cimjvo, then
pevycimjvo would be needed to express your concept.

You can habitually add pev to all metaphorical composed lujvo to be safe
(to make sure that there is room for a more literal lujvo if someone
needs it). But, if you've seriously put in the thought as to whether
there is a plausible non-metaphorical meaning, and are satisfied, omit
the pev. Especially if it is a word that is finding common usage
(under a Zipf's law argument, many things can be eliminated).


> I think it would be a good idea to use the flavored words we have for
> various specific needs, like taske and xagji, as additional bases for
> families of words about wanting and needing. We don't need a full
> family of lujvo for different kinds of actual non-metaphorical thirst!
> In theory that sounds cool, but I am having trouble even thinking of
> more than one type of thirst.

taske was added because we simply couldn't be sure that it was
culturally neutral to conflate it with xagji.

> So, as I've just demonstrated, either -taske
> can be metaphorical,

By all means!

lojbab


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

mi'e la stela selckiku

de'i la'o gy Tue, Jul 21, 2009 gy ti'u la'o gy 7:26 AM gy
la'o gy Bob LeChevalier<lojbab@lojban.org> gy srana be zo cimjvo be'o cusku
>
> Bravo on the creation.  Have you defined it in jbovlaste?


No I haven't-- I'm not sure how to define it. I could add a
definition in Lojban like "x1 lujvo x2 x3 x4 noi ke'a cilmo pe'a x2",
which is basically how I think of it, but I'm not sure that's very
helpful?


> You can habitually add pev to all metaphorical composed lujvo to be safe (to
> make sure that there is room for a more literal lujvo if someone needs it).
>  But, if you've seriously put in the thought as to whether there is a
> plausible non-metaphorical meaning, and are satisfied, omit the pev.
> Especially if it is a word that is finding common usage (under a Zipf's law
> argument, many things can be eliminated).


Yes, .ie sai, if there's any possible sense to the nonmetaphorical
lujvo, I'd want to leave the "pev" in until we're sure it's a common
word, but once we're sure a word is useful, we eventually end up
eliding rafsi from it ruthlessly, like losing the "sel" from
"selplixau". I'd say "pev" is much more elidable than "sel" on the
whole, but there are still a lot of times when it should stay. That
was exactly my thought process about zo cimjvo, "Well there's not
really any way a lujvo can be nonmetaphorically wet, is there? So we
can skip that step for this one."


> taske was added because we simply couldn't be sure that it was culturally
> neutral to conflate it with xagji.


In retrospect I'd rather have the distinction between hunger/thirst
and the more immediate and constant need for air. But perhaps once we
have a lujvo for air-need that takes on its own character, we'll be
able to build higher-level lujvo on it. For instance if we were used
to za'e "vartcu" (vacri zei nitcu, air need) or za'e "kijytcu" (is
that how you'd say that, kijno zei nitcu, oxygen need) then after a
while you might be able to evoke the right feeling with a lujvo like
za'e "pamvartcu" or za'e "pamkijytcu", for needing love like needing
to breathe.


mu'o


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Aside from being mildly ticked off by the use of 'philosophical' to describe obviously trivial arguments about how to say what or what words ought to be in the gismu list (real philosophical arguments are trivial, of course, but never look that way), I have little to add to this discussion except to mention (or stress) a couple of points; the substantive issues have been dealt with well by various hands. But
1) the strict inflexibility of the baseline, insofar as it depends upon people not wanting to relearn or scrap what they have worked so hard for, is on weak ground: English changes much faster — and often more dramatically — than Lojban could ever hope to (it's a function of having a billion speakers, give or take), yet no on complains or gives up trying to learn it: if the rewards are great enough, people will endure all manner of obstacles and, of course, a constant exposure to the living language actually makes the changes almost invisible (why we have lexicographers and grammarian, after all). But the baseline is not mainly based on this need, so that doesn't really matter (nor is it as inflexible as some would portray it).
2) Is xorlo still actually a matter of controversy? I thought we had long ago decided to leave it as xorxes described it and let the array of semantic anomolies that entailed (no worse than those for English in similar situations — though not much better either) stand. I would assume that LoCCan 3 would take up the matter again, with less dregs of JCB to plow through.
3) I like the idea someone (sorry, I can't check back while I'm typing) put forward that, if a lujvo got popular, we would drop rafsi out of it at a great rate. This seems a rather likely (or, at least, useful) solution for avoiding the Zipf's wall, that affects all fixed source-vocabulary languages. Looking forward to this solutions is also a good mindset for avoiding various kinds of literalism in constructing tanru and lujvo (and circumventing the arguments about whether it is the 4th or 5th place of barfi that is needed — or frabi rather than barfi altogether)
4) Lojban is to give a speakable Loglan. Well, Loglan was always speakable — indeed, spoken — through its many transformations (not really all that bad, for the most part) and, of course, it is still and open question whether anybody can (never mind does) speak (real time, not written with indefinite amounts of appeal to machine aids) the official Lojban to convey what they intended according to the natural semantics that goes with the parse trees.
5) The split branches idea, which comes up from time to time, is what is known in British politics as 'entryism,' joining in the common cause with the intention of killing the original and taking over. Rather than doing that sort of thing under the guise of just 'a variant of Lojban' (Lojbanido as it were), come out and say you are working on LoCCan 3 while temporarily using Lojban words for convenience; the two will not eventually recoalesce.


Fr

om: Lindar Greenwood <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>

To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:46:55 AM
Subject: lojban Philosophical differences.


I have spoken at great length with various people that frequent
the Lojban IRC channel, and it has been recommended that I draft out
issues that I have with various things in Lojban (which have been so
adequately described by broca as "not obvious mistakes, but rather philosophical differences").

Before anybody jumps down my throat, the whole "baseline" speech, and
every other counter-argument to date, has been made about why
absolutely nothing must be changed and the gismu list is handed down
from the very gods themselves. I understand that gismu space is not
meant to cover absolutely every concept known to man. That being said,
I would like to express my issues with a few words, and I welcome
responses which include either supporting statements or reasons (other
than the ones previously mentioned) why I may just be
confused/misguided/wrong/misunderstanding things/etc.


1. vlagi

It does not make sense to have a word which specifically refers to the
external female genitalia when we have "plibu". fetplibu and nakplibu
are perfectly adequate, in my opinion, for referring to the respective
genitalia of either sex. We have plibu, ganti, and pinji, which are all
non-gender-specific until we make a lujvo/tanru out of them, so we
ought to be consistent.


2. xagji

I've had this discussion at great length with people in the chat, over
and over again, until everybody pretty much wanted me to go die in a
fire. There is absolutely no way to describe "sleepy", and while my
personal usage of the word may differ from others, it doesn't change
the lack of such a concept in Lojban. tatpi means tired, as in
physically fatigued, and one must rest a moment before continuing any
activities. xagji means one is hungry, and must eat before continuing
any activities. taske means one is thirsty, and must drink before
continuing activities. None of these imply need, as there are plenty of
people that get hungry without needing to eat, there are plenty of
people that get thirsty without needing to drink, etc. This also does
not imply desire as there are plenty of people that desire to eat
regardless of hunger. Keeping this in mind, how do we express that one
is sleepy? One does not necessarily need sleep, as outlined in previous
examples related to food/drink/rest/etc., and one does not necessarily
desire sleep, as also outlined in previous examples. Therefore, we have
several concepts that have a unique value in common, which I could
inadequately describe as an intrinsic physical need, separate from the
desires of the mind, and separate from what constitutes actual need. I
would like either of the following to happen: two new gismu be created
to encompass 'sleep-hunger' (sleepiness) and 'sex-hunger'(there is no
non-slang word in English), which still leaves room for things like
air-hunger (again, no English word), exercise-hunger, and possibly even
something like entertainment-hunger (boredom, I suppose), OR that the
meaning of xagji be changed to reflect this concept, which can then be
used as lujvo/tanru to express a very large variety of concepts, such
as boredom, hunger, sleepiness, or any number of things that do not
necessarily imply need or desire, which would manifest as ctixagji
(hunger), sipxagji (sleepiness), glexagji, seljbexagji (a biological
desire to give birth, commonly refered to as the 'ticking biological
clock' in colloquial English), pinxyxagji (thirsty), pincyvi'ixagji
(which just sounds completely horrible in standard Lojban, but
considering the proposed change would mean something more along the
lines of the English phrase "I have to go pee."). None of these imply
an active and concious desire, nor are they always a need (I find
myself constantly being hungry and not wanting to eat, nor to I
actively need to eat for at least 24 hours after any given meal).


3. Cultural gismu.

Just fix it already.



4. Computer words.

Face it, we're pretty much all huge nerds. We need words for "window",
"website", "internet", "software", "hardware", and various other
things. We have computer and monitor, but not much else, and if we are
to put this language into full use as quickly as possible, I see this
as a dire necessity over most anything else.



So those are my philosophical problems with modern Lojban.
(Before you bite at problem number 2, plenty of people have already
pointed out, as the devil's advocate, that I may be making a wholly
unnecessary distinction that can be covered by need/desire, but this brings culture into play, and this concept may be wholly unique to my own personal culture. In my own concept of the universe, needing to eat, wanting to eat, and being hungry are different concepts.)

Disclaimer: I make no assertion that I am, in any way, flawless in my logic or beliefs. I admit that I could be severely wrong or mistaken about things, that I may just not have an adequate enough grasp of the language to know that there are ways to express these things, or that I am just wholly retarded and simply a barking lunatic that is annoying a good lot of people that have better things to do than listen to me.

I greatly appreciate your time, and look forward to your lovely and helpful responses.



posts: 162

John E Clifford wrote:
But
> 1) the strict inflexibility of the baseline, insofar as it depends upon
> people not wanting to relearn or scrap what they have worked so hard
> for, is on weak ground: English changes much faster

I'm not so sure. English takes decades to delete a word, and never does
so "officially", like we did in an hour or so with "gumri".

English adds words rather readily, but so does Lojban. English does not
add roots or cmavo quite so quickly, and again, never "officially" -
such a word may be added by one speaker but take decades to become
accepted enough to be added to a dictionary.

-- and often more
> dramatically — than Lojban could ever hope to (it's a function of
> having a billion speakers, give or take), yet no on complains or gives
> up trying to learn it:

No one feels any obligation to know all of the words of English.

> But the baseline is
> not mainly based on this need, so that doesn't really matter (nor is it
> as inflexible as some would portray it).

It is pretty inflexible, in that we aren't likely to consider changes
while we haven't finished defining the status quo.

> 3) I like the idea someone (sorry, I can't check back while I'm typing)
> put forward that, if a lujvo got popular, we would drop rafsi out of it
> at a great rate. This seems a rather likely (or, at least, useful)
> solution for avoiding the Zipf's wall, that affects all fixed
> source-vocabulary languages.

I wrote that, but I probably stole the idea from you in our discussions

back in the 80s %
)


(Such is true of far more of the language than most people realize,

probably including you these days %
).



lojbab


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


But English never does anything officially, since there is no official to do it. Words come and go on at least a weekly basis and probably a daily one. They appear, flourish, and disappear — nowadays the gap between appear and flourish is sometimes measured in hours worldwide; flourish to disappear takes longer — about the time it takes a parent to hear about the flourishing. As for Lojban again because of its small base new words are relatively infrequent (as new text is) and any attempt to officially add a new word is — if anyone notices — subjected to a review of the sort noted (see frabi and barfi), which rarely happens in English and, when it does, is usually after the word has disappeared. The point is that, given a reason for learning the language and the means to do it efficiently, people will learn it however slippery the target is.It is hard to say about roots in English, since most things come in whole and only are realized as
roots if they get reanalyzed. In that sense, words get discovered to be roots fairly often in English, since we are great reanalyzers (my favorite is still -holic, though that is out of date by now) ('root' not in a technical sense, obviously, but one that matches the role of gismu.)
Does anyone feel the need to learn all the words of Lojban? Maybe all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo, but probably not even that at the start. If you get into a field, you may pick up the relevant words, but otherwise not — why we need a dictionary (think all those taxonomic terms, for example).
As for the inflexibility, see all the points you have just made. The inflexibility is in a very small area of language, not including most vocabulary and all usage (within the limits of grammar). And a good part of semantics.
Ad yes, I have forgotten why we do some of the things we do that look weird now. I suppose the reasons are buried somewhere in your debris, but barely worth rooting for. Lojban is what it is and if you don't like it, don't take it up or go off and build a better.


--- Original Message --
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:54:44 AM
Subject: lojban Re: Philosophical differences.

John E Clifford wrote:
But
> 1) the strict inflexibility of the baseline, insofar as it depends upon people not wanting to relearn or scrap what they have worked so hard for, is on weak ground: English changes much faster

I'm not so sure. English takes decades to delete a word, and never does so "officially", like we did in an hour or so with "gumri".

English adds words rather readily, but so does Lojban. English does not add roots or cmavo quite so quickly, and again, never "officially" - such a word may be added by one speaker but take decades to become accepted enough to be added to a dictionary.

-- and often more
> dramatically — than Lojban could ever hope to (it's a function of having a billion speakers, give or take), yet no on complains or gives up trying to learn it:

No one feels any obligation to know all of the words of English.

> But the baseline is
> not mainly based on this need, so that doesn't really matter (nor is it as inflexible as some would portray it).

It is pretty inflexible, in that we aren't likely to consider changes while we haven't finished defining the status quo.

> 3) I like the idea someone (sorry, I can't check back while I'm typing) put forward that, if a lujvo got popular, we would drop rafsi out of it at a great rate. This seems a rather likely (or, at least, useful)
> solution for avoiding the Zipf's wall, that affects all fixed source-vocabulary languages.

I wrote that, but I probably stole the idea from you in our discussions back in the 80s %
)

(Such is true of far more of the language than most people realize, probably including you these days %
).



lojbab


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.





To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

mi'e la stela selckiku

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:04 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As for Lojban again because of its small base new words are relatively infrequent
> (as new text is) and any attempt to officially add a new word is — if anyone notices --
> subjected to a review of the sort noted (see frabi and barfi), which rarely happens in
> English and, when it does, is usually after the word has disappeared.


This used to be true but I don't believe it is anymore. There's a lot
of freeform conversation in Lojban these days, and a lot of words are
made up all the time. There are always faddish silly words. Almost
all of them do conform somewhat to the word-building rules (the only
exception I can think of being the brief fad of saying
"cccccccccccccoi"), but an unreasonable number of them are "xargismu"
(as it's in style to say these days!)-- I think just because people
get used to gismu-shape as the-shape-of-a-Lojban-word. Anyway it's
clear to me that Lojban has just the same distinction now as any
language between its official and its living form.


> Does anyone feel the need to learn all the words of Lojban?


I would like to learn all the words of Lojban! I'm fascinated by old
strange lujvo and fu'ivla. The only reason I'm trying to learn every
single one of the gismu is for completeness, though. A lot of the
gismu are the most obscure words in Lojban. I'm not sure that every
gismu has been used a single time.


mu'o


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 162

John E Clifford wrote:
> But English never does anything officially, since there is no official to do it.

And if there were, the controversy level would be much higher.

People have unofficially added gismu and cmavo to Lojban, and deleting
them unofficially consists simply of nt using them. It is the desire to
change the official list that creates controversy.


> Does anyone feel the need to learn all the words of Lojban? Maybe
> all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo, but probably not even that at
> the start.

"all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo" is precisely why that is the set
that is baselined.

No, they don't need it at the start, but those of us who reached that
point of learning those words have a substantial investment, and thus
strongly resist change.

lojbab



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.






--- Original Message --
From: Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:27:57 AM
Subject: lojban Re: Philosophical differences.

mi'e la stela selckiku

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:04 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As for Lojban again because of its small base new words are relatively infrequent
> (as new text is) and any attempt to officially add a new word is — if anyone notices --
> subjected to a review of the sort noted (see frabi and barfi), which rarely happens in
> English and, when it does, is usually after the word has disappeared.


This used to be true but I don't believe it is anymore. There's a lot
of freeform conversation in Lojban these days, and a lot of words are
made up all the time.
I'm glad to hear that; I don't check the more informal lines of communication.
There are always faddish silly words.
Aren't they almost always, in every language — but they are word in the language nonetheless (though more tentatively so in Lojban).
Almostall of them do conform somewhat to the word-building rules (the only
exception I can think of being the brief fad of saying"cccccccccccccoi"), but an unreasonable number of them are "xargismu"
(as it's in style to say these days!)-- I think just because people
get used to gismu-shape as the-shape-of-a-Lojban-word.
Well, if I remember the rules rightly (doubtful in the best of times), no lujvo can have the form of a gismu and a fu'ivla that did would be very rare indeed, so how are these words Lojban? Leaving aside that profound (yeah, right!) question, I should note that the habit of making pseudobasic words goes back to the early days of Loglan, when it was legal — because there were no rules for making compounds (one of the first published Loglan word — though it was said to be in Panlan in The Troika Incident — was 'bedgo a compound of (roughly speaking) 'bedzu' and 'gotsoand meaning 'go to bed'' (but you knew that). In fact it may have been 'betgo' violating even more later rules and all done by JCB hisownself.) Your explanation is surely correct: that is the form of Lojban predicates.
Anyway it's
clear to me that Lojban has just the same distinction now as any
language between its official and its living form.
Well, except that most languages do not have an official form and no natural one has such a harsh taskmaster as an infallible parser (if your sentence does not parse, you are wrong. quite unlike the situation in natural languages, where you may be introducing a new usage). Lojban as a problem: its main claim to be of interest is that it is uniquely parsible; if the langauge people actually use is not that sort of thing, Lojban becomes just an annoyingly complex, hard to learn SAE language, without the charming stories of the Middle Earth languages or the chance of seeing it on the screen of Klingon (maybe the new Spock will be more accomodating). Of course, there is a simple form of Lojban which is problem free (well, there are 'cu'' and thre quantifiers)which can do a lot of of day-to-day chatting without being ungrammatical in the strict sense; but the limits are a lot close than you might think — every subordinate clause or phraseis loaded with
traps and don't even get started on conjunctions!)
> Does anyone feel the need to learn all the words of Lojban?


I would like to learn all the words of Lojban! I'm fascinated by old
strange lujvo and fu'ivla.
That's a perfectly good reason to try to learn them all but in practical terms. how often will you need the word (a gismu, I think) for ruthenium or the fu'ivla for kinkajous.
The only reason I'm trying to learn every
single one of the gismu is for completeness, though. A lot of the
gismu are the most obscure words in Lojban. I'm not sure that every
gismu has been used a single time.
I'd be willing to bet that some have never been used. We don't have a definitive corpus to check; but I note that over in toki pona, which does have something very like that, two out of the total 120 words have never been used — even in the textbook.

mu'o


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.





To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


--- Original Message --

From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:11:42 AM
Subject: lojban Re: Philosophical differences.

John E Clifford wrote:
> But English never does anything officially, since there is no official to do it.

And if there were, the controversy level would be much higher.

Lord, yes! But there would be a tribunal and — most importantly — those licensed to appear before that tribunal to decide issues. Lojban has the tribunal but not (fortunately, perhaps) the lawyers. So the argument can go on forever — and does.

People have unofficially added gismu and cmavo to Lojban, and deleting them unofficially consists simply of nt using them. It is the desire to change the official list that creates controversy.

Adding new gismu doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things, since all gismu are the same to a parser, but new cmavo can really screw it up. However, if one catches on, it is easy to catch the parser up (relatively, I suppose). Has there ever been a serious proposal for one in the quotidian world?

> Does anyone feel the need to learn all the words of Lojban? Maybe
> all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo, but probably not even that at
> the start.

"all the gismu and a lot of the cmavo" is precisely why that is the set that is baselined.

I am always reminded of the shepherd in Parque sur Oise (or some such name), who admitted that he had never in his 87 years used the pluperfect subjunctive (on which the French teacher usually spent the better part of a week). As noted, I won't ever use — except for this example, perhaps — the gismu for ruthenium nor the apparatus for constructing emotion indicators, and I am unlikely to run into somebody who does — to me at least. Just like I never use the word 'ruthenium' nor know the current 16-year-old's way to say 'Fuck off' (other than that, which seems always to be an option).


No, they don't need it at the start, but those of us who reached that point of learning those words have a substantial investment, and thus strongly resist change.

Well, the proposals all seem to be of two sorts: dropping a gismu, which means that you have wasted a small amount of effort — which you may well have anyhow, if you never use or encounter the word, or adding a gismu, which requires a small amount of effort — if you think it is a word you will use when you don't have a dictionary handy. New cmavo in existing categories also is not much of a problem, nor is dropping them; only new categories create problems, and even they are more technical than personal (unless a new set of traps opens up) Certainly nothing that someone for whom the rewards are great would mind taking on.


lojbab



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.





To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

posts: 381

In a message dated 7/26/2009 16:01:34 Eastern Daylight Time,
kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:


> I note that over in toki pona, which does have something very like that,
> two out of the total 120 words have never been used — even in the
> textbook.
>

Really? Which words are they, and how did you find out they've never been
used? There's a lot of unrecorded Toki Pona conversations going on out
there.

stevo

Very true, and, as I add new sources to my corp, new cases arise. Right now, I have all the list entries and most of the pages referred to in them, plus a few things I happened upon, I am always looking for more. Case in point: yesterday evening I ran through a blog that contained a use of one of my unused words. Now, only 'oka' remains. Do you know of a use?





From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:16:53 PM
Subject: lojban Re: Philosophical differences.

In a message dated 7/26/2009 16:01:34 Eastern Daylight Time, kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:



I note that over in toki pona, which does have something very like that, two out of the total 120 words have never been used — even in the textbook.
>
>

Really? Which words are they, and how did you find out they've never been used? There's a lot of unrecorded Toki Pona conversations going on out there.

stevo



mi'e la stela selckiku

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:59 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
li'o
> Well, if I remember the rules rightly (doubtful in the best of times), no lujvo can
> have the form of a gismu and a fu'ivla that did would be very rare indeed, so
> how are these words Lojban?


Well I personally discourage the invention of xargismu, though like
many people these days I'm partial towards "kibro" (cyber). But it
shows the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive
perspective on modern Lojban, since in actual fact xargismu are some
of the most commonly invented words.

Incidentally I think that particular sickness could be cured by having
more fu'ivla in common use, so that newbies can follow them and find
fresh healthy sparsely-populated fu'ivla spaces. For instance, I
didn't know until a few years ago that the .VCCV fu'ivla space
existed. If we had a few common .VCCV words everyone knew (one of my
favorites is ".otpi", a bottle shaped object which may or may not have
a lid) then newbies would be attracted by that less taboo glittering
gem. It's a smallish space so soon enough it would be crowded too,
but meanwhile our language would be that much the richer for it.


li'o
> Well, except that most languages  do not have an official form and no
> natural one has such a harsh taskmaster as an infallible parser (if your
> sentence does not parse, you are wrong. quite unlike the situation in
> natural languages, where you may be introducing a new usage).
li'o


Again that makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure it matches the real
situation. What we actually have is two respected parsers, camxes and
jbofi'e. There are various (arguably obscure) situations in which one
or the other of them are broadly considered to be flat wrong, and I
believe there are situations in which both of them are wrong. The
consensus dialect is entirely parseable, but there is to my knowledge
no parser that fully captures it, apparently on account of laziness.
(There's also Xorxesese, which is even more easily parsed, but doesn't
have a parser for political reasons.)

The parsers are both interesting in theory and useful in practice, but
I think there's a deeper value to that abstract language itself which
we all understand using our own wetware (brain) parsers. Lojban has a
special kind of grammar, which can (at least with years of practice!)
be fully used and deeply understood by an unaided human mind.
Computers will soon be able to parse even ambiguous grammars, but
there will continue to be something unique about Lojban's structure.


mu'o


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


Well, as I said, adding new gismu or other legally shaped but underivable predicates doesn't hurt much, since they all behave the same. I agree hat it would be useful (even more useful than learning all the gismu) to introduce many of the common nongismu predicates early on. The whole 'We need a text book' issue ought to catch someone's fancy soon — I hope.
The second point is that, if Lojban is unparsable (and your assurances in the face of failing parsers is not comforting), it loses its main raison d'etre.There is nothing very unusual about Lojban's grammar aside from the fussiness put in there to insure monoparsing. So, if they fail in that purpose, or if no one can learn to speak a language with all those details in real time, Lojban loses its potential interest (though, if we could prove that no one could speak it, that would tell us something interesting).


--- Original Message --
From: Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:07:37 AM
Subject: lojban Re: Philosophical differences.

mi'e la stela selckiku

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:59 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
li'o
> Well, if I remember the rules rightly (doubtful in the best of times), no lujvo can
> have the form of a gismu and a fu'ivla that did would be very rare indeed, so
> how are these words Lojban?


Well I personally discourage the invention of xargismu, though like
many people these days I'm partial towards "kibro" (cyber). But it
shows the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive
perspective on modern Lojban, since in actual fact xargismu are some
of the most commonly invented words.

Incidentally I think that particular sickness could be cured by having
more fu'ivla in common use, so that newbies can follow them and find
fresh healthy sparsely-populated fu'ivla spaces. For instance, I
didn't know until a few years ago that the .VCCV fu'ivla space
existed. If we had a few common .VCCV words everyone knew (one of my
favorites is ".otpi", a bottle shaped object which may or may not have
a lid) then newbies would be attracted by that less taboo glittering
gem. It's a smallish space so soon enough it would be crowded too,
but meanwhile our language would be that much the richer for it.


li'o
> Well, except that most languages do not have an official form and no
> natural one has such a harsh taskmaster as an infallible parser (if your
> sentence does not parse, you are wrong. quite unlike the situation in
> natural languages, where you may be introducing a new usage).
li'o


Again that makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure it matches the real
situation. What we actually have is two respected parsers, camxes and
jbofi'e. There are various (arguably obscure) situations in which one
or the other of them are broadly considered to be flat wrong, and I
believe there are situations in which both of them are wrong. The
consensus dialect is entirely parseable, but there is to my knowledge
no parser that fully captures it, apparently on account of laziness.
(There's also Xorxesese, which is even more easily parsed, but doesn't
have a parser for political reasons.)

The parsers are both interesting in theory and useful in practice, but
I think there's a deeper value to that abstract language itself which
we all understand using our own wetware (brain) parsers. Lojban has a
special kind of grammar, which can (at least with years of practice!)
be fully used and deeply understood by an unaided human mind.
Computers will soon be able to parse even ambiguous grammars, but
there will continue to be something unique about Lojban's structure.


mu'o


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.





To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:12 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The second point is that, if Lojban is unparsable (and your assurances
> in the face of failing parsers is not comforting), it loses its main raison d'etre.

I don't think stela said Lojban was unparsable, he just said that the
actual parser implementations are not perfect. As far as I know,
camxes is practically in complete agreement with the official
specification, and where it deviates it does so on purpose. jbofi'e
has some known unintentional bugs. There are various proposals for
simplifying the official specification in a few respects, but
obviously not to change the specification to make the language
unparsable, just to change it to something simpler (I'm thinking for
example of the grammar of compound tags).

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.