_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 4 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. buckwheat
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      2. lemumoi derdesku nuzda
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      3. erratum
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      4. Re: buckwheat
           From: sklyanin@xxxx.xxx.xx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:55:26 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: buckwheat

zo'o pilno zo xruba le tanru po'o befe zo xruba befi pitnanba befo zoi .gy.
buckwheat pancakes .gy.


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:32:28 -0700
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: lemumoi derdesku nuzda

mi .e le mi speni noi se cmene la nalan. puzi jajgau loi slabu taxfu (I
and my wife, whose name is Nalan,  have just collected a mass of old
clothes)  .i lego'i djice lenu lego'e se dunda le derdesku selxrani (We
want them to be given to the victims of the earthquake)  .i ta'o la
nalan. kei seljajgau taxfu cu zmadu ri'a lenu vo'a mutce nelci lenu
taxfu ke terve'u ja zbagau (Incidentally, Nalan has collected more
clothes than me, because she really likes buying clothes or having them
made up)  .i ta'onai ti'e le mi spepa'u cu cuska lenu loi cnino po'o
taxfu se dunda .ei le derdesku selxrani ki'u ri mlinobli (Anyway,
apparently my father-in-law said that only new clothes should be given
to the earthquake victims because they are upper-middle-class people
(bad translation - the turkish is "kaliteli insanlar" - "quality
people", which translates equaly badly))
.i .oiro'a (social complaint!)  .i mi cusku lu mi'o dunda le slabu taxfu

le stuna prenu  .i .oi paunai mi'o bilga dunda le cnino taxfu le stici
prenu mu'i ma li'u (I say "We give old clothes to the people in the East

[of Turkey].  Why the hell should we give new clothes to the people in
the West?")  .i ta'o mi nelci le slabu taxfu (By the way, I like old
clothes)  .i mi ca dasni lo palkrdjinu poi la nalan. pu dasni de'i lenu
ri balcu'e tadni (I am currently wearing some jeans Nalan wore when she
was a university student)  .i zo'ovu'enai la'edi'u selcnicinse (Heh heh
- it feels sexy)

ni'o bazi cnino cteki loi karce .e loi beifonxa .e loi jecjibgu'u
seljerna mu'i lenu derdesku xrani (Soon there'll be a new tax on cars,
mobile phones and State employees' wages because of the earthquake
damage)  .i mi ponse lo karce (I own a car)  .i la nalan. ponse lo
beifonxa (Nalan owns a mobile phone)  .i la nalan. jecta ckule ctuca
(Nalan reaches in a State school)  .i .ue.oi (What a bummer!)  .i
zo'oru'e baza na cnino taxfu (Ha - no new clothes for a while!)





_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 02:04:35 -0700
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: erratum

mi cusku di'e


> .i ta'o la
> nalan. kei seljajgau taxfu cu zmadu ri'a lenu vo'a mutce nelci lenu
> taxfu ke terve'u ja zbagau
>

No idea what that {kei} was doing there, but I've had too much cheap
imported pseudo-whisky to figure out what it was supposed to be!

co'o mi'e robin.




_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:57:48 +0400 (????)
   From: sklyanin@xxxx.xxx.xx
Subject: Re: buckwheat

la lojbab (http://www.eGroups.com/list/lojban/?start=1614)
cusku di'e

>You guessed the intent exactly - to stretch the Lojban words for the
>staples  to cover the broadest possible useful meaning (in this case the
>family), allowing lujvo to narrow things to the genus/species when
>demanded.  Most of the time the gismu would work just fine for all of the
>above - you don't make rhubarb or sorrel porridge, so if the discussion
>mentions porridge, then you must be referring to the staple grain.
>
>Presumably you could also make the lujvo for buckwheat-grain to
>specifically get the grain to the exclusion of the other possibilities.
>

lujvo proposals:

gruxruba (=gurni+xruba) buckwheat in the strict sense
xubgrudja (=xruba+gurni+cidja) buckwheat porridge
pezyxruba (=pezli+xruba) sorrel
stanyxruba (=stani+xruba) rhubarb


le lojbo gusta cu stidi le xruba sanmi
.i se pamoi le pezyxruba stasu          {sorrel soup}
.i se remoi le xubgrudja                {buckwheat porridge}
.i se cimoi le stanyxruba tisnanba      {rhubarb pie}

co'o mi'e .evgenis.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Variables and connectives.
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      2. blanu kanla
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: Variables and connectives.
           From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx
      4. Re: Variables and connectives.
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      5. Re: blanu kanla
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      6. Re: Variables and connectives.
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      7. Re: 02 botany
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
      8. Re: Anselm summary
           From: Pycyn@xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: 2 Sep 1999 18:18:24 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Variables and connectives.

I was thinking about something today, something actually not hard to say in
Lojban, but it got me pondering some stuff about variables and connectives
and whatnot.  Probably nothing hard to answer, but I wasn't sure.

I started off on this line of thought with the sentence "we have the same
name" (I happened to see a man walking past wearing a necklace with the
name "Mark" on it).  There are a few unrelated ponderings I have on it, so
the presentation might be disjointed.

I figure I could avoid weird tanru and whatever by simply saying {da cmene
mi .e do}.  OK, digression:  the connective.  I can't use {mi'o} since
that's equivalent to {mi joi do} which would mean that there's something
that names us as a mass.  Just like {la djan. joi la djim. bevri le pipno}
means that Djan and Djim carry the piano jointly, acting as a team, massed
together, {da cmene mi joi do} would have to mean that there's a name for
the mass of I/we and you (us'ns and yous'ns).  Maybe we form a famous team
or something.  For all that I use {jo'u} sometimes, I'm not always positive
just how it differs from {.e}.  I suppose {da cmene mi jo'u do} would mean
that there's a name that applies to each of us individually, but only when
we're somehow considered together or something weird.  Maybe something like
"Half the Dynamic Duo" would be such a name.  So back to {.e}, which I'm
nearly certain is the right connective here (even though I've discovered
that sumti logical connectives are actually Right less often than we
think).  End digression.  Note that {da cmene mi .e do} is equivalent to
{da cmene mi .ije da cmene do}.  What I wasn't sure about, but which I
think has already been considered and is well-known, is whether the scope
works like I think it does.  That is, in {da cmene mi .ije da cmene do} am
I in fact asserting that we're dealing with the *same* da in both
sentences?  I think so; I thought bound variables had a fairly long scope,
till they were rebound or at least until {ni'o} or something.  If not, all
I'm asserting is that both you and I have names.

I think this business about expanding logical connectives into conjoined
sentences is part of what makes me a little unsure about the LAhE/LUhE
bracketing for attaching relative phrases/clauses to complex sumti, which
is what prompted me to ask (and which question nobody answered.  Hello?)
Even if I did get confused and thought you'd need a {ro} quantifier.

Anyone?

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 12:15:31 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: blanu kanla

stidi lu mi nelci lo nanmu .e lo blanu kanla ninmu je verba
li'u .a lu .e lo poi blanu kanla ku'o ninmu .e lo poi blanu
kanla ku'o verba li'u .i ji'a cumki fa lu .iu nanmu jeke blanu
kanla ninmu je verba ke'e li'u


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
   From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Variables and connectives.

mark@xxx.xxx scripsit:

> Note that {da cmene mi .e do} is equivalent to
> {da cmene mi .ije da cmene do}.  What I wasn't sure about, but which I
> think has already been considered and is well-known, is whether the scope
> works like I think it does.  That is, in {da cmene mi .ije da cmene do} am
> I in fact asserting that we're dealing with the *same* da in both
> sentences?  I think so; I thought bound variables had a fairly long scope,
> till they were rebound or at least until {ni'o} or something.  If not, all
> I'm asserting is that both you and I have names.

It works the way you think, because sentence1 .ije sentence2 is in the
scope of the (implicit) prenex that binds da.

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@xxxx.xxx
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:13:39 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Variables and connectives.

la mark cusku di'e

>I figure I could avoid weird tanru and whatever by simply saying {da cmene
>mi .e do}.

I tend to avoid logical connectives and probably would
say {mi do mintu le ka cmene}, or more explicitly
{mi do mintu le ka makau cmene ke'a}.

>  Note that {da cmene mi .e do} is equivalent to
>{da cmene mi .ije da cmene do}.

Correct. But, {mi e do se cmene da} means something
different! It expands as {mi se cmene da ije do se
cmene de}. This is just like {da cmene le re prenu}
vs. {le re prenu cu se cmene da}. The first means that
there is something that names each of the two people,
and the second means that for each of them there is
something that names them.

co'o mi'e xorxes



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: 2 Sep 1999 21:16:35 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: blanu kanla

>From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 12:15:31 PDT
>
>From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>stidi lu mi nelci lo nanmu .e lo blanu kanla ninmu je verba
>li'u .a lu .e lo poi blanu kanla ku'o ninmu .e lo poi blanu
>kanla ku'o verba li'u .i ji'a cumki fa lu .iu nanmu jeke blanu
>kanla ninmu je verba ke'e li'u

But that brings in tanru ambiguity again.  And maybe the sumti being
conjoined aren't descriptions; maybe I mean "I like Bob and ((Alice and
Sue) who-incidentally have red hair)."  Using tanru won't help there.
Preposed relative clauses are possible, but you have to repeat them (in
which case I could just as easily used postposed ones; the point was making
ONE relative clause/phrase apply to a complex sumti but not necessarily ALL
of it.)  UI cmavo don't enter into it, because the predicate in question
was just an example; substitute "lanli" or "catra" (which needn't be
emotional!) if you like.  I was asking generically; no fair restricting to
my example.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: 2 Sep 1999 21:24:27 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Variables and connectives.

>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:13:39 PDT
>
>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>la mark cusku di'e
>
>>I figure I could avoid weird tanru and whatever by simply saying {da cmene
>>mi .e do}.
>
>I tend to avoid logical connectives and probably would
>say {mi do mintu le ka cmene}, or more explicitly
>{mi do mintu le ka makau cmene ke'a}.

(maybe {ce'u} instead of {ke'a}?  Not sure of the difference.  {ke'a} is
for relative clauses, right?  Definitely need to download a new cmavo list;
I don't have ce'u in the list, and still have po'o in POhO).

Yes, and someone else suggested in private email {lo do cmene cu cmene mi}
which works too.  I just happened to think of the predicate-logic style,
with variables, and was wondering if I had it right.  No claims that it's
preferable.

>>  Note that {da cmene mi .e do} is equivalent to
>>{da cmene mi .ije da cmene do}.
>
>Correct. But, {mi e do se cmene da} means something
>different! It expands as {mi se cmene da ije do se
>cmene de}. This is just like {da cmene le re prenu}
>vs. {le re prenu cu se cmene da}. The first means that
>there is something that names each of the two people,
>and the second means that for each of them there is
>something that names them.

Whoa, you blew past me there.  Why does the implicit prenex work
differently here?  Oh, this is along the lines of moving the variable
across negation borders, and having to apply stuff like deMorgan's law?
Since the variable occurs after the {mi e do}, to move it into the prenex
it splits somehow?  I'm still pretty confused, but I'm not disagreeing.
Can someone explain this?

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:57:43 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: 02 botany

At 04:16 PM 9/2/99 +0400, sklyanin@xxxx.xxx.xx wrote:
>02 botany
>
>Questions:
>
>Do I understand correctly that the interpretations marked with (adjective:)
>refer to the meanings of a gismu as a first component of a compound (tanru)?

correct

>I thought that any metaphoric usage is explicitely discouraged in lojban.
>Still, I see many notes [metaphor: ...] in the dictionary.

Metaphoric usage is discouraged 1) because most metaphors are culturally
dependent and 2) because they make place structures less predictable.

When the gismu list was made, predictability of place structures wasn't
thought possible, so only issue 1) was important.  For those gismu that
have a specified "metaphor", we made some effort to see if the metaphorical
usage was international and not just English, and also that the given
object did not have a conflicting interpretation (for example, the "owl"
suggests 'professorial', 'academic', or 'wise' in English, but represents
'death' in China, so we did NOT include a gismu for "owl" based on
metaphorical potential).  The use of "head" for the top part of something,
however, seems quite international, so metaphors using "head" for "top"
would be more acceptable in Lojban, than metaphors based on "owl".

The primary words we figured might have metaphorical usage are body parts,
plants, animals, and chemical elements.  We also included "jade" and
"lotus" specifically because they at least stereotypically seem to be
commonly used in oriental (especially Chinese) metaphor, and we wanted to
explicitly cater to that culture that we English speakers knew the least
about.  But I don't think we clearly decided on a particular metaphorical
meaning.

I think for the Russian list it is especially important to include the
metaphorical definitions if Russians might use those words metaphorically
in the indicated way.  I believe for example, that I read a Russian poem
where the "heart" was clearly associated with emotions, as in English, and
thus if we listed "heart" as having a metaphorical linkage with
emotionalism, there is some basis for saying that this metaphor might be
understood internationally.

Now with the fact that there already is a gismu for "emotion", such a
metaphor is probably unnecessary.  And with the preference against
metaphors for place structure predictability reasons, I would expect
"heart" to seldom be used for "emotion" in metaphor.

However a poet like Michael Helsem seems to value using metaphors wherever
he can permissibly get away with them, so I am not entirely unhappy that we
have some remnants of the more metaphorical concept of Lojban tanru and
lujvo still in the language.

>lichens and mosses are very far apart. A lichen is hardly more then a mass
>of symbiotic cells of a fungus and an alga. A moss is a highly organized
>plant with many kinds of specialized cells, tissues, organs. In my English-
>-Russian dictionary the word moss has two translations: 1.  (=moss) with
>remark (botanical) 2.  (lichen) labelled as "colloquial". I have
>impression that the lojban vocabulary has a deliberate "scientific" flavor,
>so I would rather classify lichens as "mledi" (fungus, mold).

The denotation is closer to that of mosses, and the concept was the mass of
non-flowering greenery plants; you might also include ferns in this
definition, but I think we were less sure that would hold.  At least in
older classifications (not sure of the current biology), while a lichen was
a symbiote, it was a symbiote that was considered to be in the plant
kingdom rather than the animal kingdom.

Now we have 7 or 8 kingdoms worth of biological taxonomy, and I don't know
that lichens are still considered plants.  I know that algae are sometimes
plants and sometimes in a separate kingdom, and that bacteria have a couple
kingdoms all to themselves and are no longer considered animals.  But
Lojban gismu making was based on Loglan gismu making which dates back to
1950, when biological taxonomy seemed as fixed as the stars (which of
course aren't fixed, so we should have known better zo'o).

>"gurni" (grain): is it a mass or individual grain?

Yes.  We were non-specific.  A lujvo would distinguish.

When I comment like this on historical intentions for the gismu list, I
will also send them to Lojban List where others can comment and/or be
informed of those intentions.  Tommy Whitlock, if he is actively reading
the list, is the other person outside of Nora and myself who helped make
the gismu list and might remember historical arguments.  Jorge and others
from non-English backgrounds can comment on the malglico that remains in my
definitions, but it must be remembered that the original gismu list, while
concerned about malglico, was also concerned with preserving commonality
with JCB and his TLI version of Loglan for purposes of reconciliation.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:09:23 EDT
   From: Pycyn@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Anselm summary

No essay intended, just a translation that will do justice both to the
original and to the subsequent commentary.  Kant's "solution" to the eternal
question "Just what is wrong with the ontological argument?" is not
particularly relevant, since he was working off of Descartes' version, not
Anselm's  -- and, of course, existence is a predicate in Lojban (and English
and German) and, as Kant should have noticed (if he had noticed anything,
which is doubtful), an existent Thaler differs from an imaginary one in that
it can actually buy something.
pc


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There is 1 message in this issue.

 Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Variables and connectives.
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:18:52 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Variables and connectives.


>From: mark@xxx.xxx
>
> >{mi do mintu le ka makau cmene ke'a}.
>
>(maybe {ce'u} instead of {ke'a}?  Not sure of the difference.

Yes, I meant {ce'u}. I used to use {ke'a} before {ce'u} was
invented. They serve basically the same function, one for
relative clauses and the other for properties.

> >Correct. But, {mi e do se cmene da} means something
> >different! It expands as {mi se cmene da ije do se
> >cmene de}.
>
>Whoa, you blew past me there.  Why does the implicit prenex work
>differently here?  Oh, this is along the lines of moving the variable
>across negation borders, and having to apply stuff like deMorgan's law?

Yes, though there are no negations in this case. The order
of universal and existential quantifiers is significant.
The conjunction is like a universal quantifier, and the
disjunction is like an existential for this purpose,
so in this example we have a universal (with .e) and an
existential quantifier (with da), and the order in which
they appear is significant.

>Since the variable occurs after the {mi e do}, to move it into the prenex
>it splits somehow?  I'm still pretty confused, but I'm not disagreeing.

I'm not sure this has been explicitly stated in the book,
but I don't see how it could work any other way.

co'o mi'e xorxes


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There is 1 message in this issue.

 Topics in today's digest:

      1. Article article
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 21:28:07 -0700
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Article article

coi redo

In addition to the normal lessons in the begginers' course, I've decided
to add a few discursive pieces for those who want to dig a bit deeper
into the languages.  The first of these (which will probably follow
Lesson 3) is attatched.  Since it's on the controversial topic of
articles, I imagine that most people won't like it, but someone needs to
provide an overview for beginners, so here it is.

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There is 1 message in this issue.

 Topics in today's digest:

      1. Parser Puzzle
           From: mark@xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: 7 Sep 1999 20:52:45 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Parser Puzzle

OK, here's a strange 'un.  I was running the Lojban KLI info page through
the parser.  Found some mistakes.  (Also found that the parser treats
"kybycy" as a brivla and not a lerfu string, so I changed that to "ky by
cy" in the input but not in the actual file).  But I found a puzzlement.
Here are two sentences.  One, technically, is just a bare vocative.  I
guess since the grammar handles vocatives at the beginnings of paragraphs
specially, I can expect odd behavior, but still.  These two sentences parse
Just Fine separately, but error if there's an {.i} between them.  Since the
first is just a bare vocative the meaning's the same with or without the
{.i}, but it's strange.  Hmm, actually, I think I have managed to bring it
down to a simple case.  It seems to depend on the {ni'o} of all things:

ni'o ju'i loi lobypli .i do cinri

The above is NOT grammatical, according to the parser.  Neither is

ni'o ju'i lobypli .i do cinri

Both ARE correct if the {ni'o} is not there, or if the {.i} is omitted.
Adding {do'u} before the {.i} doesn't help.

This is most puzzling.  I presume the grammar will bear this out when I
check out the EBNF; I further presume this is an oversight, since it
doesn't make much semantic sense to allow it without {ni'o} and forbid it
with one.

What have you folks to say for yourselves?  About this, I mean.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There is 1 message in this issue.

 Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Parser Puzzle
           From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 15:06:15 +0400 (MSD)
   From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Parser Puzzle

coi

> OK, here's a strange 'un.  I was running the Lojban KLI info page through
> the parser.  Found some mistakes.  (Also found that the parser treats

No idea about this one bug, but parser definitely has some. I have
discovered yesterday: {mi viska ti poi} - incomplete and therefore
ungrammatical - parses as {mi viska} and {ti poi} is just ignored.

--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xx>



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx
      2. li18nux.org charter needs lojban version
           From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xxx
      3. Lojban Web Ring
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
      4. Re: lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      5. Re: lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:40:25 +0400 (MSD)
   From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx
Subject: lujvo for "forgive"?

.e'o ma? lujvo zoi glic. forgive glic.

--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xx>



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:36:41 +0200 (CEST)
   From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xxx
Subject: li18nux.org charter needs lojban version

.i sorry le nu mi nu ciska bau la lojban ...

Sorry for not writing in Lojban. I know this is wrong, but I have to spend
my time with Linux Internationalisation, which is also not uninteresting.
Currently I am managing a multilingual website of a consortium of
companies and developpers that want to make it easy for users and
programmers to handle all the world's languages on equal terms on the
Linux (free software) platform:

	http://www.li18nux.org

I believe that true internationalisation should not only be done at the
system level, but also at the level of web documentation (mlht.ffii.org)
and of language (www.lojban.org).

If our constituting documents

	http://www.li18nux.org/charter/

had a Lojban version, we would have less problems with possible disputes
and legal sophistries arising from the syntactic ambiguity of our current
charter.  I would like to have a charter that is syntactically perfectly
clear, and to have this charter endorsed by the group.  But my Lojban is
too poor, please help me.  I promise that I will learn your Lojban version
by heart, so as to leap into the circle of Lojban speakers.

Also, please align yourself to the signatories of

	http://swpat.ffii.org/lojban/

if you feel like it

-phm@xxxx.xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx







_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Lojban Web Ring

In order to encourage the creation of lojbanic websites, and to
better connect those that exist, I have created the Lojban Web Ring. If
you have a site in or about lojban, you should join! I will help you if
you have trouble.

http://decadezero.org/lojban_webring.html





-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: 15 Sep 1999 17:29:14 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: lujvo for "forgive"?

>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:40:25 +0400 (MSD)
>From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xx>
>
>From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xx>
>
>.e'o ma? lujvo zoi glic. forgive glic.

to zo .e'o ki'a toi

ni'o

mi na djuno .i ba'anai mi ji'a pu djica tu'a le vi lujvo ja selbri .i mi na
morji le jei zo'e stidi lo danfu .i .ia la'e zoi .gic. forget .gic. cu .ei
ckini le selbri .iku'i la'e zoi .gic. forget .gic. na se gismu bau la
lojban.  .i tu'a lu na'e morji li'u cumki  .iku'i la'ezoi .gic. forgive
.gic. na'e se valsi va'o le go'i .i ro'e .i .e'uru'e zo zernalmorji peipe'i

~mark



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:08:02 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: lujvo for "forgive"?



> >.e'o ma? lujvo zoi glic. forgive glic.
[li'o]
>.i .e'uru'e zo zernalmorji peipe'i

i pe'i zo zernalmorji cu matybanzu lujvo
la'e zo fraxu

co'o mi'e xorxes



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 2 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. xa'unro'a xipaci
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      2. Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:05:23 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: xa'unro'a xipaci

ba'o mastytei pu'u cikre lemi karce ku .o'onaisai (Month-long
car repairs.) .i ba'o mastytei mu'e ko'a goi le lemi speni
mamta ge'u mi'a ze'u vitke ku .iucu'i (Month-long stay of
Djuna's mother with us.) .i ca cnino cidni ko'a (She has new
knees now.) .i jinme (Metal ones.) ni'o .uenai mi'a pu'o klama
la na,lenz. (We're just about to go to New Orleans.) ni'o ca
le puziki nicte ku ge mi zdani xruti gi ko'e goi la djunas.
tivni jundi carmi (Last night when i came home Djuna was glued
to the TV.) .i .uecai nuzba lenu le cecla betri puzi fasnu ko'i
goi pale pendo be ko'e (News of a gun tragedy that had just
happened to a friend of hers) .i ko'o goi leko'i bersa cu zvati lebi'unai
malsi (whose son was at that church.) .i ku'isai snura
ri'e (He's okay.) .i fu'eti'e ko'i ko'o ze'ipo'o viska (She
only saw him for a short while.) .i bacru ledu'u ko'o ge fu'epe'a bisli
lenku fu'o gi ciblu se gacri ku .uu (She said he was "ice
cold" & covered in blood.).i ko'o pu viska lemu'e le stedu be
leko'o pendyrai cu spoja se vimcu fu'o ku .uusai (He saw his
best friend's head get blown off.) ni'o ko'e pujecaki klaku ku
.uucai (Djuna cried last night & today.) .i le cerni cu melbi
joi mlilenku (It's a beautiful cool morning.) .i mi tavla pensi
lu paunai xu le cecla fanta flalu ba zenba (I think, "Will gun
control laws get better?).i .i'anaisai nago'i (--No.) .i
.o'onaicai .uinaicai ju'e se'inai cecla prami merko mabla
(Fuckin' gun-happy Americans.")


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 06:14:46 -0400
   From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Lojban word processor for Windows?

This came up as an idea in Auxlang (from Robin Turner).

Any of you programmers out there willing to try to come up with a simple
Lojban word-processor?  I am thinking of something for Windows, but of
course there will be a bunch who would rather write it for Unix.

What I have in mind is something that supports Wordpad style editing (there
may be some open code already for such a simple editor, since Lojban uses
the standard alphabet, in which case the programming is mostly in the
utilities that follow)), with a Lojban word-list spell checker, one which
would call up the place structure on a mouse click, or give the breakdown
of a legal but undefined lujvo with a different mouse click.  And then
finally you could invoke the parser in a pop-up window for any selected
chunk of text.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 20 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Piermaria Maraziti <pierma@xxxx.xxx
      2. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Avital Oliver <bio@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "NICK KOBELJA" <nkobelja@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      4. Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      5. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
      6. Re: lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      7. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      8. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      9. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
     10. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
     11. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
     12. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
     13. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
     14. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Chris Double <chris@xxxxxx.xx.xxx
     15. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: <benny@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
     16. Lojban Word Processor
           From: John Arley Burns <hezekiah@xx.xxxxxx.xxxx
     17. le lojbo ciska mutymi'i
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
     18. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Piermaria Maraziti <piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xxx
     19. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xxx
     20. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Piermaria Maraziti <piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:36:40 +0200 (CEST)
   From: Piermaria Maraziti <pierma@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:

> Any of you programmers out there willing to try to come up with a simple
> Lojban word-processor?  I am thinking of something for Windows, but of
> course there will be a bunch who would rather write it for Unix.

I wish to do something similar.
With a dictionary online and a parser that could suggest the continuation
of a sentence and another that can help you translating from lojban
interlinearizing with translations and making the syntactical tree.

But I have no time, as for now, to do it... :-(
Perhaps I can support someone who wishes to try.

Hmm, apart of that, I strongly suggest to use Java to do it: this for
three reasons: multiplatform support (win 95 and unix version comes easy),
a strong and very good language, and the program could also be put in an
applet, on the internet, with little effort.

Ciao!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piermaria Maraziti - piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx - http://piermaria.maraziti.it
ait anuas [Ex Arcano] - ainulindale: - Discordia l'Eterno - +3934735GILDA
http://gilda.it  http://www.pathos.it  http://discussioni.org  ICQ:744473
Gran Siniscalco del  Leale Ordine della Cavalleria et Stregoneria Italica



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:49:41 +0200
   From: Avital Oliver <bio@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

> Any of you programmers out there willing to try to come up with a simple
> Lojban word-processor?  I am thinking of something for Windows, but of
> course there will be a bunch who would rather write it for Unix.

I would love to do it.
(Of course, my first version would be either Unix or Java).
If it is to be graphical, I'll do it in Java, if not, then a console application
in Unix.





_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:53:42 -0500
   From: "NICK KOBELJA" <nkobelja@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

I think I might be interested in working on a project like this.  I am a computer programmer by trade and going to school part time, but I think that I could enjoy making time for this project.

The idea of using Java sounds appealing for the same reasons given by the author below.  There are some reservations, however.  The Java wars are still raging and Java tends to be just a tad slow for the average end-user's expectations.  I always know that if an app is dragging, then it's bound to be written in Java  - but then, that might be Microsoft's way of "helping" java die out  :)



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Lojban word processor for Windows?

Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group writes:
 > Any of you programmers out there willing to try to come up with a simple
 > Lojban word-processor?  I am thinking of something for Windows, but of
 > course there will be a bunch who would rather write it for Unix.

Of course :-)

Oddly enough I was thinking about just this problem this morning as I
was walking to work.  In particular, Loglan's regular structure gives
the text editor lots of help in e.g., automatically typesetting (a la
LaTeX).

 > What I have in mind is something that supports Wordpad style editing (there
 > may be some open code already for such a simple editor, since Lojban uses
 > the standard alphabet, in which case the programming is mostly in the
 > utilities that follow)),

Another approach, of course, is to write extensions for editors that
support that kind of thing. Emacs comes to mind :-)  So does
Framemaker (which runs on everything, though is pricey).

An Emacs major mode should be straight-forward. I'm a little surprised
one doesn't already exist (or am I wrong here?).  Easy stuff like
recognizing sentence structure and piping text to the parser.

An initial Framemaker extension would consist simply of a document
template with lots of smart "paragraph" styles (with each "paragraph"
in Framemaker being a lojban bridi). For example:

StartUtterance - first sentence, following "paragraph" is
ContinueUtterance - "autonumbered" to start with ".i "
StartParagraph - autostarts with .ni'o, next para is
  continueUtterance.
etc. formatting makes all this look pretty.

On another tack, a lojban font would be an interesting
problem. Specifically, the ligatures would probably be different from
an English font (as letter frequency is different), and would probably
emphasize the cmavo.

 > with a Lojban word-list spell checker,

Should be a matter of assembling a dictionary and giving it ispell
(for emacs) or framemaker, making sure to tell it that this is a
different language. For that matter, internationalizing any of these
editors would be interesting. Both Frame and Emacs (Mule) have support
for this.

 > one which
 > would call up the place structure on a mouse click,

A little trickier but again, primarily just needs a database of the
place structures.

 > or give the breakdown
 > of a legal but undefined lujvo with a different mouse click.

and a database of the rafsi....

 >  And then
 > finally you could invoke the parser in a pop-up window for any selected
 > chunk of text.

Emacs is especially good at this.....

Hmmm....

Might have to do it.....

A Frame template  will be easiest - anyone else out there have access
to Framemaker to be a beta tester?

Brook

---------
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, NICK KOBELJA wrote:

 > The idea of using Java sounds appealing for the same reasons given by
 the author below.  There are some reservations, however.  The Java wars
are still raging and Java tends to be just a tad slow for the average



The Java war has been dead for well over a year: Sun's 100% Java is the
only Java.


-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: 17 Sep 1999 17:38:13 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: lujvo for "forgive"?

>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:08:02 PDT
>
>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
>> >.e'o ma? lujvo zoi glic. forgive glic.
>[li'o]
>>.i .e'uru'e zo zernalmorji peipe'i
>
>i pe'i zo zernalmorji cu matybanzu lujvo
>la'e zo fraxu

.oiro'aroe .i ri'a ma paunai mi o'onaise'i na ganse zo fraxu

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: 17 Sep 1999 17:40:51 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:53:42 -0500
>From: "NICK KOBELJA" <nkobelja@xxxxxxx.xxx>

>The idea of using Java sounds appealing for the same reasons given by the =
>author below.  There are some reservations, however.  The Java wars are =
>still raging and Java tends to be just a tad slow for the average =
>end-user's expectations.  I always know that if an app is dragging, then =
>it's bound to be written in Java  - but then, that might be Microsoft's =
>way of "helping" java die out  :)

Eh, the fine-points of distinction can often be avoided in a simple enough
application, and word-processing hardly needs blinding speed, so the
slowness shouldn't matter much in that application.  Java sounds like a
Good Plan to me.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: 17 Sep 1999 17:51:28 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>Oddly enough I was thinking about just this problem this morning as I
>was walking to work.  In particular, Loglan's regular structure gives
>the text editor lots of help in e.g., automatically typesetting (a la
>LaTeX).

I was thinking along similar lines wrt typography and typesetting for
Lojban (I've been designing a Latin-character Klingon font, with
appropriate ligatures, etc).  But you can't improve too much on some nice
cold monospaced Courier-like fonts for Lojban.  It fits the language.

> > What I have in mind is something that supports Wordpad style editing (there
> > may be some open code already for such a simple editor, since Lojban uses
> > the standard alphabet, in which case the programming is mostly in the
> > utilities that follow)),
>
>Another approach, of course, is to write extensions for editors that
>support that kind of thing. Emacs comes to mind :-)  So does
>Framemaker (which runs on everything, though is pricey).
>
>An Emacs major mode should be straight-forward. I'm a little surprised
>one doesn't already exist (or am I wrong here?).  Easy stuff like
>recognizing sentence structure and piping text to the parser.

I *like* that idea.  I guess I'm surprised I didn't already write a major
mode in emacs.  Then again, I also have to keep reminding myself what
people are looking for.  I still expect word-processors to be just really
really good typewriter/typesetter machines, not popping up templates,
word-completions (unless you ask), stuff like that.  But I'll wager that
just an as-you-type cmene-checker would get a workout!

>An initial Framemaker extension would consist simply of a document
>template with lots of smart "paragraph" styles (with each "paragraph"
>in Framemaker being a lojban bridi). For example:
>
>StartUtterance - first sentence, following "paragraph" is
>ContinueUtterance - "autonumbered" to start with ".i "
>StartParagraph - autostarts with .ni'o, next para is
>  continueUtterance.
>etc. formatting makes all this look pretty.

Maybe indents for .i?

>On another tack, a lojban font would be an interesting
>problem. Specifically, the ligatures would probably be different from
>an English font (as letter frequency is different), and would probably
>emphasize the cmavo.

See above.  I gave that some thought, but didn't come up with anything.
Lojban doesn't feel right with much in the way of "real" ligatures (like
fi, fl, etc).  Typography to make the cmavo more distinctive might be nice,
but I'm not sure how.  Except maybe to emphasize ".i", but then if you
break lines at every jufra (which I personally don't do in writing most of
the time) you don't need it.  Though you do want to make sure your font
does nice things with the apostrophe.  Not to much and certainly not too
little.  Again, monospace seems oddly workable.  The overly wide space for
the apostrophe makes sure you can't mistake "ta'i" for "tai".

> > one which
> > would call up the place structure on a mouse click,
>
>A little trickier but again, primarily just needs a database of the
>place structures.

Would come in handy, no mistake.

> > or give the breakdown
> > of a legal but undefined lujvo with a different mouse click.
>
>and a database of the rafsi....

YES.  For building and reading.

And one of cmavo?

> >  And then
> > finally you could invoke the parser in a pop-up window for any selected
> > chunk of text.
>
>Emacs is especially good at this.....

M-x compile.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

[ I've split this thread into typesetting and text editing ]
mark@xxx.xxx writes:
 > >Oddly enough I was thinking about just this problem this morning as I
 > >was walking to work.  In particular, Loglan's regular structure gives
 > >the text editor lots of help in e.g., automatically typesetting (a la
 > >LaTeX).
 >
 > I was thinking along similar lines wrt typography and typesetting for
 > Lojban (I've been designing a Latin-character Klingon font, with
 > appropriate ligatures, etc).  But you can't improve too much on some nice
 > cold monospaced Courier-like fonts for Lojban.  It fits the language.

Urgh. Okay, maybe it is just me, but I find monospaced fonts hard to
read.   I don't find Lojban to be cold. Rather, I notice its rich
capacity for metaphor, its poetic rhythms, the fluid syntax. It is
certainly *precise*, no doubt about it, but cold? Not to me. But then,
I'm a hacker, so speaking in Prolog doesn't seem too strange :-)

I did an experiment where I developed a mode for using Tengwar
(Tolkien's Elvish font) with Lojban. Surprisingly, it worked amazingly
well (better than it did for Brown's original Loglan).  Lojban's
phonemics are so regular and uniform, and the Tengwar maps so readily
to phonemic structures, the two go hand in hand.  The Tehtar for the
vowels (various little accents and such, for those not familiar with
the orthography) have a nice side effect in making syntactic structure
*visible* - any word with a tengwa with no tehta ("r" is the plural in
Quenya and Sindarin) must be a selbri (or possibly a name).

Most of the basic little words end up being a single glyph: one tengwa
with one tehta above, maybe one below. This suggests ligatures for
these combinations, at least in Tengwar. They become pictogram-like
word-characters, yet still have all the phonemic information apparent.

Actually, the one open question I'd still muddling about for this mode
is whether to put "r" and "l" in Row 6 of the Tengwar - the
semivowels.  This has a certain elegance, but it does make the writing
a bit more monotonous looking. But most tengwar modes don't put r and
l up there, but as part of the "other tengwa".

 > >On another tack, a lojban font would be an interesting
 > >problem. Specifically, the ligatures would probably be different from
 > >an English font (as letter frequency is different), and would probably
 > >emphasize the cmavo.

> See above.  I gave that some thought, but didn't come up with
> anything.  Lojban doesn't feel right with much in the way of "real"
> ligatures (like fi, fl, etc).  Typography to make the cmavo more
> distinctive might be nice,

Certainly. Most of the ones starting with a c seem straight-forward,
as do ones with f, t, d, g, k.  That's just off the top of my head for
the cmavo.

Some of the consonant clusters look amenable, as well. For instance,
an English font wouldn't have a ligature for "cm", as it never (?)
appears in english. In lojban, of course, it's common. For that
matter, in "lojban" itself, "jb" and "an" look feasible, and occur
often enough that you might do it.

I guess this seems ligature-heavy, but to my thinking, typing the
letters together emphasizes the structure, which is part of the beauty
of lojban.

> but I'm not sure how.  Except maybe to emphasize ".i", but then if you
> break lines at every jufra (which I personally don't do in writing most of
> the time) you don't need it.

Yeah, I wouldn't break at every jufra either. So emphasizing .i gets
us right back to ligatures for little words.

> Though you do want to make sure your font does nice things with the
> apostrophe.  Not to much and certainly not too little.  Again,
> monospace seems oddly workable.  The overly wide space for the
> apostrophe makes sure you can't mistake "ta'i" for "tai".

Hmmm. True, but the overly long space also suggests "ta'  i" or even
"ta i". Using a ligature for 'i (merging the dot over the i and the
apostrophe to make a bent line) would look sufficiently different that
I think it would work well. And you still have tons of white space
beneath the apostrophe.


Brook

---------
% \(-
(-: Command not found.

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
   Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

[ this is the text editor thread]
mark@xxx.xxx writes:
 > I *like* that idea.  I guess I'm surprised I didn't already write a major
 > mode in emacs.  Then again, I also have to keep reminding myself what
 > people are looking for.  I still expect word-processors to be just really
 > really good typewriter/typesetter machines, not popping up templates,
 > word-completions (unless you ask), stuff like that.  But I'll wager that
 > just an as-you-type cmene-checker would get a workout!

Oh yeah - there will be some people that want an emacs mode just for
the chuckle value - "Look! I can get Zippy to talk Lojban! Now let's
psychoanalyze it!" (Emacs arcana - if you don't get it, don't worry.)

 > >An initial Framemaker extension would consist simply of a document
 > >template with lots of smart "paragraph" styles (with each "paragraph"
 > >in Framemaker being a lojban bridi). For example:
 > >
 > >StartUtterance - first sentence, following "paragraph" is
 > >ContinueUtterance - "autonumbered" to start with ".i "
 > >StartParagraph - autostarts with .ni'o, next para is
 > >  continueUtterance.
 > >etc. formatting makes all this look pretty.

 > Maybe indents for .i?

My first try on this (since writing the email earlier today) assumes
each bridi has it's own "paragraph". The first bridi in a .ni'o
paragraph has no automatic text, and is a "run-in" heading, which
means the next para starts on the same line this one finishes on. You
use a new .ni'o style for a .ni'o paragraph, which starts on its own
line. The ".ni'o" is inserted automatically, and the ".ni'o" hangs
into the left margin, which makes paragraphs easy to spot. It's also
consistent with ".ni'oni'o" and such.

So text looks like this:

      mi vecnu ta la djan. .i la djan. mi i vecnu .i mi tavla la
      meris.

.ni'o la lojban. melbi mi

.ni'o la zo'is. melbi mi .i la zo'is. mi melbi vecnu vau



It might be nice to automatically decorate the .ni'o and the .i (e.g.,
in bold, or a slightly larger font, or something) to make them a
little more obvious.  Of course, a lojban font would handle this (see
the other thread).

 > > > or give the breakdown
 > > > of a legal but undefined lujvo with a different mouse click.
 > >
 > >and a database of the rafsi....
 >
 > YES.  For building and reading.

Sure - tab completion! This *is* emacs we're talking about!

 > And one of cmavo?

Yep. If it is syntax-aware, of course, it should only suggest legal
cmavo for wherever point is. And with tab-completion again.


Brook

---------
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
-- Bill Gates on the solid code base of Win9X

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
   Date: 17 Sep 1999 21:01:37 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>[ I've split this thread into typesetting and text editing ]
>mark@xxx.xxx writes:
> > >Oddly enough I was thinking about just this problem this morning as I
> > >was walking to work.  In particular, Loglan's regular structure gives
> > >the text editor lots of help in e.g., automatically typesetting (a la
> > >LaTeX).
> >
> > I was thinking along similar lines wrt typography and typesetting for
> > Lojban (I've been designing a Latin-character Klingon font, with
> > appropriate ligatures, etc).  But you can't improve too much on some nice
> > cold monospaced Courier-like fonts for Lojban.  It fits the language.
>
>Urgh. Okay, maybe it is just me, but I find monospaced fonts hard to
>read.   I don't find Lojban to be cold. Rather, I notice its rich
>capacity for metaphor, its poetic rhythms, the fluid syntax. It is
>certainly *precise*, no doubt about it, but cold? Not to me. But then,
>I'm a hacker, so speaking in Prolog doesn't seem too strange :-)

I'm a hacker too; "cold" is not an insult to me.  Lojban is an astoundingly
rich and poetry-capable language to me, but for all that it does still
retain the distinction of syntactic unambiguity, which is decidedly a
mechanistic trait.  Monospace fonts do tend to be ugly, but strangely they
do seem to work pretty well for Lojban.  Not that there isn't something
else that wouldn't work better; I just so far have been satisfied with the
typewriter look (wow.  That's not supposed to happen in typography.
Typewriter font is hideous).

>I did an experiment where I developed a mode for using Tengwar
>(Tolkien's Elvish font) with Lojban. Surprisingly, it worked amazingly
>well (better than it did for Brown's original Loglan).  Lojban's
>phonemics are so regular and uniform, and the Tengwar maps so readily
>to phonemic structures, the two go hand in hand.  The Tehtar for the
>vowels (various little accents and such, for those not familiar with
>the orthography) have a nice side effect in making syntactic structure
>*visible* - any word with a tengwa with no tehta ("r" is the plural in
>Quenya and Sindarin) must be a selbri (or possibly a name).

Nice; obviates the need for the cmene-final period as a reminder.

Someone once mailed me, out of the blue, a letter detailing how to write
Esperanto using the Hebrew alphabet (actually the Yiddish alphabet, or
Hebrew used in the Yiddish fashion).  My response was, "Um... OK, that
works... but, er, why?"  Lojban in tengwar has a more legitimate right to
exist, actually, since Lojban is supposed to have a bit more independence
from its orthography than Esperanto.

>Most of the basic little words end up being a single glyph: one tengwa
>with one tehta above, maybe one below. This suggests ligatures for
>these combinations, at least in Tengwar. They become pictogram-like
>word-characters, yet still have all the phonemic information apparent.

You really should have come up with some way to make diphthongs -- both VV
and V'V -- into tehta-combinations.  That way *all* cmavo would be single
symbols.  It would make a nice cmavo/brivla distinction.  Not sure if it's
possible without making a real mess of the notation, though.

>Actually, the one open question I'd still muddling about for this mode
>is whether to put "r" and "l" in Row 6 of the Tengwar - the
>semivowels.  This has a certain elegance, but it does make the writing
>a bit more monotonous looking. But most tengwar modes don't put r and
>l up there, but as part of the "other tengwa".

Tengwar by their nature are monotonous-looking when written.  Probably the
weakest thing, aesthetically and practically, about the system: most of the
letters resemble one another.  You can't get around that, might as well
live with it.

There's a certain charm to teeny little Grade 6 r/l, especially given their
role as hyphens/glue in Lojban.

Have you bounced this off Ivan Derzhanski, Lojbanist, typographer, and
tengwarist extraordinaire?

> > >On another tack, a lojban font would be an interesting
> > >problem. Specifically, the ligatures would probably be different from
> > >an English font (as letter frequency is different), and would probably
> > >emphasize the cmavo.
>
>> See above.  I gave that some thought, but didn't come up with
>> anything.  Lojban doesn't feel right with much in the way of "real"
>> ligatures (like fi, fl, etc).  Typography to make the cmavo more
>> distinctive might be nice,
>
>Certainly. Most of the ones starting with a c seem straight-forward,
>as do ones with f, t, d, g, k.  That's just off the top of my head for
>the cmavo.
>
>Some of the consonant clusters look amenable, as well. For instance,
>an English font wouldn't have a ligature for "cm", as it never (?)
>appears in english. In lojban, of course, it's common. For that
>matter, in "lojban" itself, "jb" and "an" look feasible, and occur
>often enough that you might do it.
>
>I guess this seems ligature-heavy, but to my thinking, typing the
>letters together emphasizes the structure, which is part of the beauty
>of lojban.

Come to think of it, you may be on to something here.  Using ligatures for
consonant-clusters emphasizes the clustering, and makes them distinctive.
And noticing consonant clusters is critical in Lojban (especially as
written with frequent "compound cmavo").  And maybe that's what you just
said.

Ligating cmavo might dilute that, but not if done carefully.

>> but I'm not sure how.  Except maybe to emphasize ".i", but then if you
>> break lines at every jufra (which I personally don't do in writing most of
>> the time) you don't need it.
>
>Yeah, I wouldn't break at every jufra either. So emphasizing .i gets
>us right back to ligatures for little words.

Not much ligating you can do with {.i} though.  Except for a special font
or form for the {i}.

>> Though you do want to make sure your font does nice things with the
>> apostrophe.  Not to much and certainly not too little.  Again,
>> monospace seems oddly workable.  The overly wide space for the
>> apostrophe makes sure you can't mistake "ta'i" for "tai".
>
>Hmmm. True, but the overly long space also suggests "ta'  i" or even
>"ta i". Using a ligature for 'i (merging the dot over the i and the
>apostrophe to make a bent line) would look sufficiently different that
>I think it would work well. And you still have tons of white space
>beneath the apostrophe.

Bear in mind I'm one of those who pushed early on for permitting {h} as an
alloglyph of {'}, for handwriting.  So I'm in favor of pretty heavy
representations of {'}, and generally fearful of losing it.  Mmm, I'm torn
regarding the idea of merging the apostrophe and the dot.  If anything, I
want to emphasize the break, not obscure it.  But on the other hand, I
could see some kind of big bold comma-ish thing ligated on top of an {i}
that almost becomes a syllable-glyph for {'i} (the /hi/ syllable).
Confusion with {ta' i} or {ta i} doesn't scare me much, since I do NOT
intend for the {'} to be lost (if anything I would overemphasize it), and
if we're looking to pump up the visual distinctiveness of the {.i} cmavo it
will not conflict with the {i} in {ta'i}.  All of which also doesn't treat
the other four vowels and the need for a certain amount of visual
consistency.

Don't fear heavy ligatures; wait till I show you my Klingon font...

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
   Date: 17 Sep 1999 21:10:41 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>[ this is the text editor thread]
>mark@xxx.xxx writes:
> > I *like* that idea.  I guess I'm surprised I didn't already write a major
> > mode in emacs.  Then again, I also have to keep reminding myself what
> > people are looking for.  I still expect word-processors to be just really
> > really good typewriter/typesetter machines, not popping up templates,
> > word-completions (unless you ask), stuff like that.  But I'll wager that
> > just an as-you-type cmene-checker would get a workout!
>
>Oh yeah - there will be some people that want an emacs mode just for
>the chuckle value - "Look! I can get Zippy to talk Lojban! Now let's
>psychoanalyze it!" (Emacs arcana - if you don't get it, don't worry.)

Hee... Considering people STILL screw up cmene construction, I know it will
be useful.  Ask Lojbab what a pain in the nether regions I was about
knocking down people's faulty cmene.

> > >An initial Framemaker extension would consist simply of a document
> > >template with lots of smart "paragraph" styles (with each "paragraph"
> > >in Framemaker being a lojban bridi). For example:
> > >
> > >StartUtterance - first sentence, following "paragraph" is
> > >ContinueUtterance - "autonumbered" to start with ".i "
> > >StartParagraph - autostarts with .ni'o, next para is
> > >  continueUtterance.
> > >etc. formatting makes all this look pretty.
>
> > Maybe indents for .i?
>
>My first try on this (since writing the email earlier today) assumes
>each bridi has it's own "paragraph". The first bridi in a .ni'o
>paragraph has no automatic text, and is a "run-in" heading, which
>means the next para starts on the same line this one finishes on. You
>use a new .ni'o style for a .ni'o paragraph, which starts on its own
>line. The ".ni'o" is inserted automatically, and the ".ni'o" hangs
>into the left margin, which makes paragraphs easy to spot. It's also
>consistent with ".ni'oni'o" and such.
>
>So text looks like this:
>
>      mi vecnu ta la djan. .i la djan. mi i vecnu .i mi tavla la
>      meris.
>
>.ni'o la lojban. melbi mi
>
>.ni'o la zo'is. melbi mi .i la zo'is. mi melbi vecnu vau

I've started these days doing stuff more like:

ni'o
le broda cu brode .i mi brode le'i brodo gi'e brodi .ije do .iu se panci

ni'o
mi do citka

i.e. line-break after the ni'o, no line-breaks between jufra, but
whitespace between paragraphs (i.e. before ni'o, but not after).  See
http://www.kli.org/kli/langs/KLIlojban.html for an example.

Indentation helps in reading, but I'm starting to think it may be unwieldy
in practice.  Lots of major-league hanging indents (and worse, nesting)
mean a lot of wasted space.

>It might be nice to automatically decorate the .ni'o and the .i (e.g.,
>in bold, or a slightly larger font, or something) to make them a
>little more obvious.  Of course, a lojban font would handle this (see
>the other thread).

Note that in Courier-ish fonts, {.i} is pretty marked already.  That period
helps.

> > > > or give the breakdown
> > > > of a legal but undefined lujvo with a different mouse click.
> > >
> > >and a database of the rafsi....
> >
> > YES.  For building and reading.
>
>Sure - tab completion! This *is* emacs we're talking about!

You bet.

> > And one of cmavo?
>
>Yep. If it is syntax-aware, of course, it should only suggest legal
>cmavo for wherever point is. And with tab-completion again.

Oooh, clever.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
   Date: 17 Sep 1999 21:15:31 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>Cc: mark@xxx.xxxx lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>From: sdlee@xxxx.xxx.xx (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~})
>Date: 18 Sep 1999 04:00:19 +0800
>
>>>>>> "David" == David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> writes:
>
>    David> My first try on this (since writing the email earlier
>    David> today) assumes each bridi has it's own "paragraph". The
>    David> first bridi in a .ni'o paragraph has no automatic text, and
>    David> is a "run-in" heading, which means the next para starts on
>    David> the same line this one finishes on. You use a new .ni'o
>    David> style for a .ni'o paragraph, which starts on its own
>    David> line. The ".ni'o" is inserted automatically, and the
>    David> ".ni'o" hangs into the left margin, which makes paragraphs
>    David> easy to spot. It's also consistent with ".ni'oni'o" and
>    David> such.
>
>Rather than  having the compute suddenly  spit out some  text, I would
>prefer  that  it automatically  recognizes  that  I'm  starting a  new
>paragraph when  I type ".ni'o" and  hence does the right  thing for me
>(e.g. hangs ".ni'o" to the left, ".ni'oni'o" further left, etc.)
>
>Well... this is just my personal taste.

I'm with you.  When I programmed in Pascal (it was for school, sorry) I
always used to disable Pascal-abbrev-mode because I didn't like the machine
trying to complete my code for me.  Maybe I don't WANT begin/end pairs.  Or
whatever.  Or maybe I just like typing everything in.

>Has anyone of you brought up syntax-highlighting using font-lock-mode?
>It'd be nice to have the gismu, rafsi and cmavo displayed in different
>colors.  Better still, different  categories of cmavo can be displayed
>in  their own  colors, with  open  cmavo have  the same  color as  the
>closing ones (such as "le" and "ku").

In fact, paren-matching would be a HANDY thing (and more
device-independent) for terminators.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
   Date: 18 Sep 1999 12:16:09 +1200
   From: Chris Double <chris@xxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx> writes:

> Any of you programmers out there willing to try to come up with a simple
> Lojban word-processor?  I am thinking of something for Windows, but of
> course there will be a bunch who would rather write it for Unix.

A good base to start from might be AbiWord: http://www.abiword.com/

This is an open source word processor with a similar look and feel to
modern commercial word processors. It works on a number of platforms
including Windows, Linux and BeOS.

Chris.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:03:38 +1000 (EST)
   From: <benny@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

An idea for this might be to write a lojban-mode for Emacs. This would
be a distinct disadvantage to non-Emacs users, but it would have a
host of powerful resources to draw from. Also, as a blind user of
Linux, I use Emacs all the time to get speech feedback.

I might have a bash at this idea when I have time to both do it and
brush up on my knowledge of Elisp.

Regards,
Ben


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:38:27 -0500
   From: John Arley Burns <hezekiah@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Lojban Word Processor


Naturally anyone could use my auto-dictionary program, it's GPL'd. The
only part not truely cross-platform is the hashed database, but I
believe there are Perl modules to fix this now. Anyone writing in perl
could piggyback off this effort. In addition, perl is very
cross-platform, and the perl Gtk module will work with unix and
windows and mac.

Interesting features specific to lojban would include:

Lojban grammar checker (a parser)

Lojban grammar diagram (parser tree)

Lojban-*/*-Lojban dictionary for many * languages

Using unicode and multi-locale, we could support many languages

Perlmacs/Emacs interface?

Smart spell checkers (can use GNU ispell)

Auto-translator of Lojban-*, for supported *'s (this is the most
  exciting part, and the most work. But only lojban could currently
  give you good quality auto-translation)

Web links from grammar diagram to online reference grammar

Simplified 'comprehension-test' generator using Nick's semantic
  analyzer, for simple sentences. Useful for teaching and
  self-evaluation.

Allow easy, automated submission of lojban writings to the lojban
  archive.

LaTeX markup output of a Lojban LaTeX environment to make the quotes,
  periods, case, and "ni'o"s look nice in printed/postscript output.

Auto-convert document to HTML, Lojban XML, DocBook

Auto spelling converters (s/h/H/g; s/'/h/g; and more sophisticated
case changing, indenting).

Auto formatting of quotations, prenex (into TeX math? :-), math
expressions, etc. This would probably be part of the LaTeX package,
but could also have useful HTML/XML and DocBook output.

Just some ideas...

co'o mi'e djan.


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 02:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: le lojbo ciska mutymi'i

go ma'a zbasu ri la djava gi mi jorne le zbasu seci'o le gleki



-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:37:02 +0100
   From: Piermaria Maraziti <piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

At 09.53 17/09/1999 -0500, you wrote:

>The idea of using Java sounds appealing for the same reasons given by the
author below.  There are some reservations, however.  The Java wars are
still raging and Java tends to be just a tad slow for the average
end-user's expectations.  I always know that if an app is dragging, then
it's bound to be written in Java  - but then, that might be Microsoft's way
of "helping" java die out  :)

Well... cooling all flames on Java and Microsoft I have a simple solution
to that.

Using Java 1.2 and only JFC (Swing) classes, you are compatible with almost
every compiler, among which Visual Cafe' who can compile in native code on
Windows 95/98/NT machines. You have quality of software (due to a beautiful
and good language), speed on the vast majority of platforms and
compatibility with Unix (and Macs!) that are burdened a little less the
M$'s from Java Virtual Machines.

Ciao!

PS: I'm project leader of a project budgeted around $ 400,000 with 5, soon
7, men at staff, almost entirely to be written in Java (using also Oracle 8
and Weblogic)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piermaria Maraziti - piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx - http://piermaria.maraziti.it
ait anuas [Ex Arcano] - ainulindale: - Discordia l'Eterno - +3934735GILDA
http://gilda.it  http://www.pathos.it  http://discussioni.org  ICQ:744473
Gran Siniscalco del  Leale Ordine della Cavalleria et Stregoneria Italica


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:36:32 +0200 (CEST)
   From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

On 17 Sep 1999 mark@xxx.xxx wrote:

> >The idea of using Java sounds appealing for the same reasons given by the =
> >author below.  There are some reservations, however.  The Java wars are =
> >still raging and Java tends to be just a tad slow for the average =
> >end-user's expectations.  I always know that if an app is dragging, then =
> >it's bound to be written in Java  - but then, that might be Microsoft's =
> >way of "helping" java die out  :)

Byte-compiled java programs are just as fast as any other.

> Eh, the fine-points of distinction can often be avoided in a simple
> enough application, and word-processing hardly needs blinding speed,
> so the slowness shouldn't matter much in that application.  Java
> sounds like a Good Plan to me.

What about just writing

	- an ispell table for Lojban
	- an Emacs mode for Lojban

?

I don't see the point in having an extra word processor just for one
language.  Also, I think there are far more important items on the
programming agenda:  a good, portable glosser / automatic translator
of syntax-parsed lojban text.

-phm



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 20
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:02:16 +0100
   From: Piermaria Maraziti <piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

At 11.36 18/09/1999 +0200, you wrote:

>I don't see the point in having an extra word processor just for one
>language.  Also, I think there are far more important items on the
>programming agenda:  a good, portable glosser / automatic translator
>of syntax-parsed lojban text.

The idea is to do a WP with an integrated "good, portable glosser /
automatic translator
of syntax-parsed lojban text" - perhaps at least as for vwrsion "1.0",
without the "automatic translator" part, excluding the interlinearizing
capabilities that will help so much in translating (and learning)!

Ciao!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piermaria Maraziti - piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx - http://piermaria.maraziti.it
ait anuas [Ex Arcano] - ainulindale: - Discordia l'Eterno - +3934735GILDA
http://gilda.it  http://www.pathos.it  http://discussioni.org  ICQ:744473
Gran Siniscalco del  Leale Ordine della Cavalleria et Stregoneria Italica


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
      2. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      4. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      5. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xx>


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:46:33 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

At 11:02 AM 9/18/99 +0100, Piermaria Maraziti wrote:
>From: Piermaria Maraziti <piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx>
>
>At 11.36 18/09/1999 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >I don't see the point in having an extra word processor just for one
> >language.  Also, I think there are far more important items on the
> >programming agenda:  a good, portable glosser / automatic translator
> >of syntax-parsed lojban text.
>
>The idea is to do a WP with an integrated "good, portable glosser /
>automatic translator
>of syntax-parsed lojban text" - perhaps at least as for vwrsion "1.0",
>without the "automatic translator" part, excluding the interlinearizing
>capabilities that will help so much in translating (and learning)!

Well, even that is probably version 2.0.  Robin Turner, who originally
mentioned it on conlang, suggested that being able to click on a word and
call up its place structure (which implies calling up its tanru breakdown
if it is not in the dictionary) is the thing most needed for Lojban
writing.  Having a dictionary lookup for English words would seem an
obvious thing to include at the same level.  Such lookups are presumably
trivial utility routines by now, so if you started from that open software
base that several have mentioned, we have something that is small enough
for someone to tackle in their spare time in a few days.

The fancy version written from scratch that uses Java, and has the
functionality of the parser/glosser and the lujvo maker and typesetting
including Tolkienian stuff is a much bigger project - probably worth doing,
but not likely to have someone writing it very soon.  You either have to
write it from scratch or translate the existing code.  Just making existing
Turbo Pascal code portable has never been accomplished for any of our core
software (at least a dozen people started to translate LogFlash into C,
including using an auto-translator to help, and no one in 10 years ever got
a working program, though Eric Raymond got close.  I suspect that the
glosser is bigger than LogFlash, though I haven't looked.  Both are very
time consuming to debug and test).
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:28:36 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) writes:
 > From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx>
 >
 > At 11:02 AM 9/18/99 +0100, Piermaria Maraziti wrote:
 > >From: Piermaria Maraziti <piermaria@xxxxxxxx.xx>
 > >
 > >At 11.36 18/09/1999 +0200, you wrote:
 > > >I don't see the point in having an extra word processor just for one
 > > >language.

Agreed - that's why I suggested an extension to an existing
editor. Since I know Framemaker and Emacs best (and neither are
provided by the Evil Empire :-), I suggested extensions to those.

 > > > Also, I think there are far more important items on the
 > > >programming agenda:  a good, portable glosser / automatic translator
 > > >of syntax-parsed lojban text.
 > >
 > >The idea is to do a WP with an integrated "good, portable glosser /
 > >automatic translator
 > >of syntax-parsed lojban text" - perhaps at least as for vwrsion "1.0",
 > >without the "automatic translator" part, excluding the interlinearizing
 > >capabilities that will help so much in translating (and learning)!

Erm, I'd be careful about what "the" idea is. See below.

 > Well, even that is probably version 2.0.  Robin Turner, who originally
 > mentioned it on conlang, suggested that being able to click on a word and
 > call up its place structure (which implies calling up its tanru breakdown
 > if it is not in the dictionary) is the thing most needed for Lojban
 > writing.

Yeah, this would seem to be the case - place structure is probably the
most opaque part of the language. Sure, natural languages have similar
problems (transitive vs intransitive verbs come to mind), but I'll bet
people learning English (or anyone trying to write in a non-native
tongue) would appreciate usage hints comparable to lojban place structure.

 >  Having a dictionary lookup for English words would seem an
 > obvious thing to include at the same level.

Yes, especially with the part of speech identified and allowable
adjacent parts of speech and their meaning.

 > Such lookups are presumably
 > trivial utility routines by now, so if you started from that open software
 > base that several have mentioned, we have something that is small enough
 > for someone to tackle in their spare time in a few days.

Yep - the "hard" part is having the database of words to look up. But
le gi'uste looks regular enough in format that it could probably be
adapted pretty much as is.

So, presuming Emacs as a base, here's the stepping stones:

1. an interactive function that looks up the word under point (the
   cursor) in various word databases - gismu, cmavo, etc.

2. An extension that provides tab-completion of partial words

3. A major mode that provides some basic functionality:
   regexps to use with outline-minor-mode (ni'oni'o and the like)
   notations for use with font-lock (what's a quoted piece of text
     (string to font-lock), "paren" matching, etc)
   bindings to 1. and 2.
   binding to pipe buffer or region to parser

4. A major mode with more functionality
   interactive syntax checking
   auto-suggestion and elision of cmavo
   spell-checking
   dictation (!)
   lujvo tools

 > The fancy version written from scratch that uses Java, and has the
 > functionality of the parser/glosser and the lujvo maker and typesetting
 > including Tolkienian stuff is a much bigger project - probably
 > worth doing,
 > but not likely to have someone writing it very soon.

I just want to be clear on a few things:

1. Writing a text editor from scratch is an interesting student
exercise, but I don't see that you'd gain much for lojban
functionality over existing open source (or closed but extensible)
text editors.

2. The typography Mark and I have been discussing is (to me, at least,
and I imagine to Mark as well) a wholly separate issue from the text
editor. The issue got raised in the context of the text editor, but
type-setting and text editing are not the same thing (I write in
Emacs, but use TeX to type-set - and I'm damn glad I don't typeset in
Emacs).

3. Very specifically, the use of Tengwar for lojban is strictly an
esthetic exercise for me. I make no claims that it has any real
practical application beyond beauty (for a very conlang-ish kind of
beauty at that).

 >  You either have to
 > write it from scratch or translate the existing code.  Just making existing
 > Turbo Pascal code portable has never been accomplished for any of our core
 > software (at least a dozen people started to translate LogFlash into C,
 > including using an auto-translator to help, and no one in 10 years ever got
 > a working program, though Eric Raymond got close.  I suspect that the
 > glosser is bigger than LogFlash, though I haven't looked.  Both are very
 > time consuming to debug and test).

This doesn't surprise me - especially rewriting Pascal in C (something
that strikes me as a largely misguided effort at best, and positively
sadistic (or masochistic, depending on whether the task was assigned
or voluntarily undertaken)).

For various kinds of parsing and transformational applications, I'd
suggest the programming language Haskell. It isn't wide-spread, but it
runs everywhere, and is quite well-suited to these kinds of things.

Brook

---------
All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:34:12 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

mark@xxx.xxx writes:
 > >Rather than  having the compute suddenly  spit out some  text, I would
 > >prefer  that  it automatically  recognizes  that  I'm  starting a  new
 > >paragraph when  I type ".ni'o" and  hence does the right  thing for me
 > >(e.g. hangs ".ni'o" to the left, ".ni'oni'o" further left, etc.)
 > >
 > >Well... this is just my personal taste.
 >
 > I'm with you.  When I programmed in Pascal (it was for school, sorry) I
 > always used to disable Pascal-abbrev-mode because I didn't like the machine
 > trying to complete my code for me.  Maybe I don't WANT begin/end pairs.  Or
 > whatever.  Or maybe I just like typing everything in.

No need to apologize - I wrote a whole damn textbook on the stuff :-)

As for whether or not to have the machine spit out ".i" or "ni'o" or
whatever, I was talking about Framemaker. It's very easy to get Frame
to automatically add text to a "paragraph" at either end. Defining new
key bindings is possible but much more arcane.

An emacs version, of course, would do something like the following:

When the user types ".", see if there is a preceding consonant - if
so, it's a name, format accordingly (add a space, skip over it)

If not, then wait to see if you're doing .i or .ni'o or whatever and
act accordingly as soon as you know.

 > >Has anyone of you brought up syntax-highlighting using font-lock-mode?
 > >It'd be nice to have the gismu, rafsi and cmavo displayed in different
 > >colors.  Better still, different  categories of cmavo can be displayed
 > >in  their own  colors, with  open  cmavo have  the same  color as  the
 > >closing ones (such as "le" and "ku").
 >
 > In fact, paren-matching would be a HANDY thing (and more
 > device-independent) for terminators.

Yep - see my other post detailing the steps.....

Brook

---------
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

mark@xxx.xxx writes:
 > brook writes:
 > >Most of the basic little words end up being a single glyph: one tengwa
 > >with one tehta above, maybe one below. This suggests ligatures for
 > >these combinations, at least in Tengwar. They become pictogram-like
 > >word-characters, yet still have all the phonemic information apparent.
 >
 > You really should have come up with some way to make diphthongs -- both VV
 > and V'V -- into tehta-combinations.  That way *all* cmavo would be single
 > symbols.  It would make a nice cmavo/brivla distinction.  Not sure if it's
 > possible without making a real mess of the notation, though.

Ah, didn't mention that detail, but had in fact thought of it.

In my tengwar mode for lojban, the tehta above a tengwar is for a
following vowel, as most lojban words end in a vowel.  As in Tolkien's
own Tengwar mode for Old English, a second following vowel is
represented by a tehta *under* the tengwa.  Because of the shape of
the tehtar, you can either draw the lower tehta right-side up, or
upside down (i.e., mirrored, which appeals to me esthetically).

So that covers cvv. ' is a tengwa itself (you should like that, Mark -
really emphasizes it) - it's a voiceless velar fricative (x is the
voiced velar fricative). So that handles cv'v with two tengwar and two
tehta - still visually clear from a selbri, which *must* have a bare
tengwa somewhere. v or vv cmavo can be represented using the short
carrier symbol.

So what about v'v?  You could either write this as a short carrier
followed by the ' tengwa or (if no ambiguity resulted) you could break
the following-vowel pattern and put the first v above the ' tengwa and
the second one underneath (since ' never comes between a break and a
vowel or between a consonant and a vowel, this works more than might
first be apparent).


 > >Actually, the one open question I'd still muddling about for this mode
 > >is whether to put "r" and "l" in Row 6 of the Tengwar - the
 > >semivowels.  This has a certain elegance, but it does make the writing
 > >a bit more monotonous looking. But most tengwar modes don't put r and
 > >l up there, but as part of the "other tengwa".
 >
 > Tengwar by their nature are monotonous-looking when written.

True. Though Quenya uses enough of the "other" tengwar that it looks
less monotonous than lojban does.

 >  Probably the
 > weakest thing, aesthetically and practically, about the system: most of the
 > letters resemble one another.  You can't get around that, might as well
 > live with it.
 >
 > There's a certain charm to teeny little Grade 6 r/l, especially given their
 > role as hyphens/glue in Lojban.

Actually, the hyphen/glue thing makes me think they *shouldn't* be
grade 6 - if they look visibly different, they suggest a different
structure as well. In fact, this is one place where a Loglan mode
works a little better - you can use Grade 6   for R and L when it's
acting like a vowel, and the other tengwar otherwise.

 > Have you bounced this off Ivan Derzhanski, Lojbanist, typographer, and
 > tengwarist extraordinaire?

Nope. Don't know him. Got an email address? Or is he on this list?

 > >I guess this seems ligature-heavy, but to my thinking, typing the
 > >letters together emphasizes the structure, which is part of the beauty
 > >of lojban.
 >
 > Come to think of it, you may be on to something here.  Using ligatures for
 > consonant-clusters emphasizes the clustering, and makes them distinctive.

Yeah - just like the bare tengwa does when using tengwar.

 > And noticing consonant clusters is critical in Lojban (especially as
 > written with frequent "compound cmavo").  And maybe that's what you just
 > said.

Thanks - it is! :-)

 > Ligating cmavo might dilute that, but not if done carefully.

It might, but I can think of two approaches to doing it carefully.

One is to somehow style the consonant-vowel ligatures for cmavo
differently. Maybe the i looks more like a slash, or some other subtle
tweak to the serifs or shapes.

The other is to simply not use ligatures with consonants in cmavo -
there's plenty you can use that are just vowels (or vowels and ').

 > Not much ligating you can do with {.i} though.  Except for a special font
 > or form for the {i}.

Which is all a ligature is anyway :-) An i with a stem that looks
something like a backwards capitol L.

 > Bear in mind I'm one of those who pushed early on for permitting {h} as an
 > alloglyph of {'}, for handwriting.  So I'm in favor of pretty heavy
 > representations of {'}, and generally fearful of losing it.  Mmm, I'm torn
 > regarding the idea of merging the apostrophe and the dot.  If anything, I
 > want to emphasize the break, not obscure it.  But on the other hand, I
 > could see some kind of big bold comma-ish thing ligated on top of an {i}
 > that almost becomes a syllable-glyph for {'i} (the /hi/ syllable).

Exactly.

 > Confusion with {ta' i} or {ta i} doesn't scare me much, since I do NOT
 > intend for the {'} to be lost (if anything I would overemphasize it), and
 > if we're looking to pump up the visual distinctiveness of the {.i} cmavo it
 > will not conflict with the {i} in {ta'i}.  All of which also doesn't treat
 > the other four vowels and the need for a certain amount of visual
 > consistency.

'a is easy, as is 'u. 'o and 'e are a bit more of a stretch, but if
you think about the bar on a Q or the hook on double-loop forms of g,
you get something pretty reasonable. And they all involve this big,
comma-like hook thing.

Ligating i with a preceding vowel is an easy one, as is u and a (if
you use the small-loop-overhook shape of a, not the single loop
form). e and o are harder, but again, not impossible. For example, eo
ligates much like ae. ao is an obvious extension. And so on....

 > Don't fear heavy ligatures; wait till I show you my Klingon font...

:-)

Brook

---------
Hidden DOS secret: add BUGS=OFF to your CONFIG.SYS

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:06:16 +0200 (CEST)
   From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 benny@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx wrote:

> An idea for this might be to write a lojban-mode for Emacs. This would
> be a distinct disadvantage to non-Emacs users, but it would have a
> host of powerful resources to draw from. Also, as a blind user of
> Linux, I use Emacs all the time to get speech feedback.

Any wordprocessor is disadvantaging to those who aren't used to it. Emacs
is maybe the least disadvantaging of all editing tools. Emacs runs on all
OSes and emulates user interfaces of various other editors. It has its
system-independent Lisp virtual machine, which was there about 10 years
before the Java Virtual Machine.

Of course the main tools, such as parser / glosser and lookup commands
should probably be written as standalone applications in some language
better than Emacs Lisp (imho Emacs Lisp is already much better suited
to the task than Turbo Pascal or C, but Scheme, Haskell and Prolog should be
even better).  Also, the data themselves should be in a format that makes
them independent, such as perhaps SGML/XML (with a certain DTD), and
for fast lookup, they should be put into a secondary database format.

Probably providing the data is the most tedious part.

-phm



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 15 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
      2. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      4. Re: le lojbo ciska mutymi'i
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      5. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      6. abstracting from cmene
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      7. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      8. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      9. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
     10. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
     11. Re: Tengwar [was Typesetting Lojban ]
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
     12. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
     13. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "Arnt Richard Johansen" <enkefalos@xxxxxxx.xxxx
     14. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
     15. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:55:40 -0700
   From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

Yes, I am on the list, and here's what I have to say:

(1) Like Mark, I prefer monospace to proportional for Lojban.
I don't know whether Lojban is hot or cold, poetic or prosaic,
fluid or solid, nor whether it needs to be any of those things.
Its first and strongest claim is to being a *logical* language,
and in this it can't afford to fail.

Forget about typewritten English; think on a larger scale.
The Chinese script is always monospace, and yet looks gorgeous,
doesn't it?  More to the point, it is a logical thing:  1 unit
of width = 1 syllable = 1 morpheme.  (With very few exceptions.)

Do you like the fact that all Lojban gismu are of equal length,
measured in phonemes/letters (5 in all, 3 consonants and 2 vowels)?
Well, I want the next logical thing:  I also want them to be of
equal width on paper.  That doesn't have to mean monospace as in
all characters being of the same width, but I'd like every consonant
to be as wide as every other, and every vowel as wide as every other
(perhaps less wide than the consonants).  It makes sense for {' , .}
to be much narrower than the letters.

(2) _cm_ does occur in English, but is very rare; try a search
for `*cm*' in <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/mweb>.  I don't mind
ligatures in general, but I don't think I'd want any in Lojban
-- for the same Vulcanish reason as above: the distinction
that would be introduced between ligatured and unligatured
sequences would be illogical and artificial, and by virtue
of that fact most undesirable in the context of Lojban.

(3) Lojban in tengwar should work, although, in fairness, there are
natlangs whose consonant structures are more regular, and which are
better candidates for being written in tengwar (I'd nominate Nivkh,
or any of a number of Australian languages such as Aranta).

But no primary-order tengwa for {'}, please!  Writing it as if
it were a voiceless velar fricative would make it more similar
to {k} or {x} that many other consonants would be.  If it must
be a tengwa, let it be a very distinctive one such as yanta.
(This is why I've always opposed {h} for {'} in Roman script
-- it should be very prominent, but it is a Good Thing that it
doesn't look like a consonant.)

And if you want to take advantage of the logicality of the tengwar,
you shouldn't dream of writing {x} as if it were a voiced consonant.

--
"mu' Dajatlhpa', reH DajatlhlaH,  <soxan tA nagoftI, tawAnI-^s goft,
'ach Dajatlhpu'DI', DughatlhlaH"   walI gofteH rA bAz natwAn nehoft>
            (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski                     <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:41:58 -0400 (EDT)
   From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

Well ... not a word processing mode, but here is a pointer to some
Emacs Lisp libraries that I wrote years ago before I ran out of time
to study Lojban.  Some of you may find these helpful:
lookup,  flashcard,  and gismu list formatting.

I have put them in a gzip'd tar file on my website in a directory
called:

    http://www.rattlesnake.com/lojban/

See

    http://www.rattlesnake.com/lojban/lojban-readme.html

for more commentary.   The various files are in

    lojban-flashcard.tar.gz



1. The `lojban-lookup.el' program looks up Lojban gismu as formatted
   in the list from 1993 or so.  (I did not include cmavo at that
   time.)  I have not looked at this program since 1994 and do not
   know if it works with any of the current formats.  Indeed, I cannot
   remember how it works.  Fortunately, the source code is fairly well
   documented, so it should make some sort of sense.  I suspect the
   newer Lojban distributions store vocubulary in a different format,
   so you will to modify this lookup program yourself to get it to
   work.


2. `lojban-flashcard.el':  I modified Lars Huttar's Emacs Flashcard
   mode to work with Lojban.  This still works great!  I just tested
   it!  It works with both cmavo and gismu.

   You can start with some basic words, both gismu and cmavo, that I
   put into a file called `basic-words', then you can go on to a the
   complete 1994 list of gismu in alphabetical order.  These ten lists
   are preformatted to work with the Flashcard program.  Each file is
   nearly 190kb long and may take some time to load.  It provides help
   -- type the `h' key -- and a variety of other features, such as
   score data.



3. The `format-gismu-list.el' file provides two functions to reformat
   entries in the 1994 English-Lojban list, `engdict.gis' so that they
   fit into 80 columns.  If I remember rightly, this is the format I
   use for the Flashcard program.  The format keeps the various field
   markers that John and Lojbab put into the original list, so it is
   easy to further process such a file.


If you want the Emacs Lisp libraries and formatted vocabulary files,
download

    http://www.rattlesnake.com/lojban/lojban-flashcard.tar.gz

This gzip'd tar file is 543,609 bytes long and untars into a
subdirectory called `flashcard'.  You can see what it untars to by
looking into the  `flashcard' directory at the site:

    http://www.rattlesnake.com/lojban/flashcard

All I did is untar the

    lojban-flashcard.tar.gz

that is there, so what you see is what I see.



Best wishes.

I hope to get back to Lojban sooner or later; it is just that other
parts of my life momentarily take precedence.

--
    Robert J. Chassell                  bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Rattlesnake Enterprises             http://www.rattlesnake.com


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: 19 Sep 1999 15:53:24 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>From: <benny@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:03:38 +1000 (EST)
>
>From: <benny@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
>
>An idea for this might be to write a lojban-mode for Emacs. This would
>be a distinct disadvantage to non-Emacs users, but it would have a
>host of powerful resources to draw from. Also, as a blind user of
>Linux, I use Emacs all the time to get speech feedback.
>
>I might have a bash at this idea when I have time to both do it and
>brush up on my knowledge of Elisp.

I'm really liking this idea.  Certainly easier to make a start on an emacs
mode than a whole editor from scratch in language-of-your-choice.  Even
*IF* the goal is to make a standalone editor from the ground up, I'd say an
emacs major-mode is a worthwhile initial goal.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: 19 Sep 1999 15:59:32 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: le lojbo ciska mutymi'i

>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 02:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
>From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
>
>From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
>
>go ma'a zbasu ri la djava gi mi jorne le zbasu seci'o le gleki

ki'a

.i zo ri ki'aru'e .i xu ri du le mutymi'i .i zo djava na cmene bau la
lojban. .i .e'u zo cmima .e lu lei zbasu li'u .e lu le ka gleki li'u se
stidi mi

co'omi'e mark.


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: 19 Sep 1999 16:06:14 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:28:36 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>3. A major mode that provides some basic functionality:
>   regexps to use with outline-minor-mode (ni'oni'o and the like)
>   notations for use with font-lock (what's a quoted piece of text
>     (string to font-lock), "paren" matching, etc)
>   bindings to 1. and 2.
>   binding to pipe buffer or region to parser

Paren matching will be nice; those terminators can get confusing in long
sentences, even when you're trying to be simple.

>4. A major mode with more functionality
>   interactive syntax checking
>   auto-suggestion and elision of cmavo
>   spell-checking
>   dictation (!)
>   lujvo tools

Don't forget cmene-checking.  Or maybe I deleted that.

>1. Writing a text editor from scratch is an interesting student
>exercise, but I don't see that you'd gain much for lojban
>functionality over existing open source (or closed but extensible)
>text editors.

It *could* be nice... But definitely AFTER we've learned lessons from
something simpler.

>2. The typography Mark and I have been discussing is (to me, at least,
>and I imagine to Mark as well) a wholly separate issue from the text
>editor. The issue got raised in the context of the text editor, but
>type-setting and text editing are not the same thing (I write in
>Emacs, but use TeX to type-set - and I'm damn glad I don't typeset in
>Emacs).

Agreed on all points, and I also use TeX (though I may have to break down
and find som M$-Word for some things; I can't seem to find anything on
Linux that can do TrueType kerning properly.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:19:05 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: abstracting from cmene

coi rodo

I've just been writing a piece in my web-diary in which I (not
terribly seriously) try to explain my near-religious devotion to
Juliette Binoche in semiotic terms.  The basic idea is of a
Peircean Icon (e.g. an image of JB) sparking off "unlimited
semiosis", or of the same thing being a "connotative sign" a la
Barthes.  I started thinking about the question in Lojbanic terms
and ran up against the problem that I can't, if I understand the
Book correctly, say {la ka biNOC.}, since the word immediately
following {la} has to be a cmene, so it would be read as a
reference to someone called "Cabinoche".  Is there a simple way
to say "Binocheness" other than {tu'a la biNOC.}, which is too
vague for what I had in mind?

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: 19 Sep 1999 16:22:49 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>mark@xxx.xxx writes:
> > brook writes:
> > >Most of the basic little words end up being a single glyph: one tengwa
> > >with one tehta above, maybe one below. This suggests ligatures for
> > >these combinations, at least in Tengwar. They become pictogram-like
> > >word-characters, yet still have all the phonemic information apparent.
> >
> > You really should have come up with some way to make diphthongs -- both VV
> > and V'V -- into tehta-combinations.  That way *all* cmavo would be single
> > symbols.  It would make a nice cmavo/brivla distinction.  Not sure if it's
> > possible without making a real mess of the notation, though.
[ ... ]

>So that covers cvv. ' is a tengwa itself (you should like that, Mark -
>really emphasizes it) - it's a voiceless velar fricative (x is the
>voiced velar fricative). So that handles cv'v with two tengwar and two
>tehta - still visually clear from a selbri, which *must* have a bare
>tengwa somewhere. v or vv cmavo can be represented using the short
>carrier symbol.

I like the emphasis... but considering how much all tengwar look alike it
may be overdoing it; I might be with Ivan here.  Actually, halla would
probably be a fine choice for {'}; isn't that what's suggested in The
Book's tengwar mode?  Or else hyarmen, for distinctiveness.

> > >Actually, the one open question I'd still muddling about for this mode
> > >is whether to put "r" and "l" in Row 6 of the Tengwar - the
> > >semivowels.  This has a certain elegance, but it does make the writing
> > >a bit more monotonous looking. But most tengwar modes don't put r and
> > >l up there, but as part of the "other tengwa".
> >
> > Tengwar by their nature are monotonous-looking when written.
>
>True. Though Quenya uses enough of the "other" tengwar that it looks
>less monotonous than lojban does.

Monotony isn't the worst of it.  Even if there are plenty of "extras", you
still have the problem that two very different words look almost identical
due to the similar tengwar.  Hebrew gets criticized for this for its few
pairs of similar letters; it's far worse in Quenya.

> > There's a certain charm to teeny little Grade 6 r/l, especially given their
> > role as hyphens/glue in Lojban.
>
>Actually, the hyphen/glue thing makes me think they *shouldn't* be
>grade 6 - if they look visibly different, they suggest a different
>structure as well. In fact, this is one place where a Loglan mode
>works a little better - you can use Grade 6   for R and L when it's
>acting like a vowel, and the other tengwar otherwise.

But the grade-6, as I recall, are small little things, good for hyphens.
The other letters are more consonantal.

Oh, and {y} should definitely be somehow distinctive, in any mode (even
English works this OK, with the descender): it signals "brivla" just like a
consonant cluster.  Oh, and I was thinking about your reliance on
tehta-less tengwar... that's okay, but bear in mind that noticing the
*absence* of a tehta is a lot harder than noticing the *presence* of
something.  It works well at the ends of words for flagging cmene, but may
be easier to miss medially.

> > Have you bounced this off Ivan Derzhanski, Lojbanist, typographer, and
> > tengwarist extraordinaire?
>
>Nope. Don't know him. Got an email address? Or is he on this list?

Don't find him, he'll find you.

> > Not much ligating you can do with {.i} though.  Except for a special font
> > or form for the {i}.
>
>Which is all a ligature is anyway :-) An i with a stem that looks
>something like a backwards capitol L.

Or larger, or bold, or swash...

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
   From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

   >2. The typography Mark and I have been discussing is (to me, at least,
   >and I imagine to Mark as well) a wholly separate issue from the text
   >editor.

Yes, but since you can already type Chinese, Cyrillic, Ethiopic, and
Latin all in the same Emacs buffer, surely you can add the Tolkein
characters?  The Emacs' multilingual extension provides all sorts of
tools (and the next version will remove the need for fixed width
fonts.)

--
    Robert J. Chassell                  bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Rattlesnake Enterprises             http://www.rattlesnake.com


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:42:55 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote:

> Do you like the fact that all Lojban gismu are of equal length,
> measured in phonemes/letters (5 in all, 3 consonants and 2 vowels)?
> Well, I want the next logical thing:  I also want them to be of
> equal width on paper.  That doesn't have to mean monospace as in
> all characters being of the same width, but I'd like every consonant
> to be as wide as every other, and every vowel as wide as every other
> (perhaps less wide than the consonants).  It makes sense for {' , .}
> to be much narrower than the letters.


Of course, with these conditions the font is no longer monospace.

Check out Lojban set in Caslon, though.


-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

[ split - this is on spacing in typography - tengwar taken up elsewhere]
Ivan A Derzhanski writes:
 > From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
 >
 > Yes, I am on the list, and here's what I have to say:
 >
 > (1) Like Mark, I prefer monospace to proportional for Lojban.
 > I don't know whether Lojban is hot or cold, poetic or prosaic,
 > fluid or solid, nor whether it needs to be any of those things.
 > Its first and strongest claim is to being a *logical* language,
 > and in this it can't afford to fail.

Point taken.

 > Forget about typewritten English; think on a larger scale.
 > The Chinese script is always monospace, and yet looks gorgeous,
 > doesn't it?

Yes, it does look gorgeous, especially when written by someone that
knows what they are doing. However, keep in mind that the parts of
Chinese orthography closest to what might be called "letters" are
*not* monospace - many Chinese characters are composed of several
other characters, squished and cropped to fit into the "monospace"
rectangle of a Chinese "character".

I think I haven't made clear one of my concerns about monospace fonts
for lojban. It's a matter of "visual tone." If you recall Knuth's
writing on the line breaking algorithm for TeX, that's the same kind
of thing I mean - the main prose should strive for a relatively even
"color".  From what I've read on typography, this is a major concern
when designing a book font (for display fonts, all bets are off, of
course). I would suggest that Chinese orthography generally exhibits
this characteristic. I can't think of a single natural orthography
that *doesn't* particularly exhibit this trait. The only one that
comes to mind (though this may just be my lack of truly broad
familiarity with the field) is Japanese, which only lacks a uniform
"color" because written Japanese is usually mix of *four* orthographic
systems (one matching Chinese orthography, two Japanese syllabic
orthographies (one for native words and one for foreign words), and
the Roman alphabet).

Now that I think of it, though, studies on font readability (as I
recall), indicate that what you find easiest to read is what you learn
to read on. Hence, most Europeans find sans serif just dandy for book
fonts, while most Americans find serif easier.  Perhaps this suggests
that people find monospace fonts harder to read because they generally
did not grow up learning to read that way.

 > More to the point, it is a logical thing:  1 unit
 > of width = 1 syllable = 1 morpheme.  (With very few exceptions.)

I lost your referent here. Are you referring to Chinese still or to
lojban?  If Chinese, it's incorrect, as previously noted, many of the
characters are a combination of "primitive" characters. If lojban,
yes, within a particular part of speech, if you use a monospace font
(hence this thread) or if you measure width in characters.

 > Do you like the fact that all Lojban gismu are of equal length,
 > measured in phonemes/letters (5 in all, 3 consonants and 2 vowels)?

Hmmm. I'm neutral on it. It's a nice pattern, especially when the
letters are chosen cleverly.

 > Well, I want the next logical thing:  I also want them to be of
 > equal width on paper.

Why is *width* the next logical thing? Why not height? Or color - you
could track cmavo tighter than brivla or some other pattern.

 > That doesn't have to mean monospace as in
 > all characters being of the same width, but I'd like every consonant
 > to be as wide as every other, and every vowel as wide as every other
 > (perhaps less wide than the consonants).

If logic becomes a concern for the orthography, though, it seems to
open things up to some sticky questions - the lojban alphabet seems to
be based only scantly on "logic" - its basis is much stronger in
engineering and pragmatics. We use it because many people already use
it.

Hmmm. This has the gears going. What would a lojban-specific,
*logical* orthography look like?

 > It makes sense for {' , .}
 > to be much narrower than the letters.

Which nukes the uniform width bit......

This is quite a stimulating discussion - I am enjoying it immensely
(and if I sound strident or shrill anywhere, please don't take it as a
personal attack - I don't intend such and am merely getting excited by
an enjoyable discussion).

Brook

---------
E Pluribus Modem

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Tengwar [was Typesetting Lojban ]

[ split of threads again - this is the tengwar thread ]
Ivan A Derzhanski writes:
 > (3) Lojban in tengwar should work, although, in fairness, there are
 > natlangs whose consonant structures are more regular, and which are
 > better candidates for being written in tengwar (I'd nominate Nivkh,
 > or any of a number of Australian languages such as Aranta).

I don't know these particular languages, so I'll take your word for
it. Any recommended reading?

 > But no primary-order tengwa for {'}, please!  Writing it as if
 > it were a voiceless velar fricative would make it more similar
 > to {k} or {x} that many other consonants would be.

Here's the basic mode (where / stands in for a tengwa that is
unused). Map it to the standard tengwar diagram:

t p k /
d b g /
s f c '
z v j x
n m / /
? / ? /

The last row, the semi-vowels, I hadn't yet decided on whether it
should include r and l or not. That decision was discussed briefly
elsewhere. One thought was to switch tengwa depending on usage.

 > If it must
 > be a tengwa, let it be a very distinctive one such as yanta.
 > (This is why I've always opposed {h} for {'} in Roman script
 > -- it should be very prominent, but it is a Good Thing that it
 > doesn't look like a consonant.)

Hmmm. I want to think about that. I used the short carrier for a comma
- rather than two tehtar on one tengwa, the vowel separation becomes
explicit with the short carrier which has no consonantal sound. I used
the long carrier as a period (which works especially well for before a
vowel, and is visually indicative after a consonant).

Perhaps the short carrier is better for ' than for ,. ' is only ever
between vowels, so the short carrier seems to be a bit better
suited. Which means I need to think about the comma, now :-)

 > And if you want to take advantage of the logicality of the tengwar,
 > you shouldn't dream of writing {x} as if it were a voiced consonant.

My goof - I first worked on a Loglan mode, where "x" is explicitly
noted as a voiced "h".  Of course, x should be where I have ' in my
lojban mode (which is where I had h in the loglan mode).

Thanks for the feedback.....

Brook

---------
Press any key to continue or any other key to quit...

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
   Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:33:04 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

Robert J. Chassell writes:
 > From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
 >
 >    >2. The typography Mark and I have been discussing is (to me, at least,
 >    >and I imagine to Mark as well) a wholly separate issue from the text
 >    >editor.
 >
 > Yes, but since you can already type Chinese, Cyrillic, Ethiopic, and
 > Latin all in the same Emacs buffer, surely you can add the Tolkein
 > characters?

Sure, but the point that I was trying to make was that typography and
orthography was orthogonal to the question of a word processor. The
functionality of the word processor should be comparable no matter
what orthography it is using (as Mule/Emacs demonstrates in
spades). And typography, well, I'm a structured markup fiend. Mixing
typography with word processing seems misguided and encourages lots of
visually ugly documents - Microsoft products seem to be especially bad
in this regard, as their tools for supporting styles as semantic
mark-up are fairly crippled.

Just my biases. I guess I got anal from taking a book from outline to
camera-ready form. Made me really sensitive to the different tasks at
each stage.


It would certainly be nice to have lojban as a full-scale language
supported from top to bottom, with multiple possible entry forms
(type, lookup, dictate) and renderings (latin, tengwar, spoken,
others).


 > The Emacs' multilingual extension provides all sorts of
 > tools (and the next version will remove the need for fixed width
 > fonts.)

Um, clearly you prefer GNU Emacs - the Lucid/X Emacs branch has
supported non-fixed width fonts for years :-)

Sorry, just had to take the cheap shot in the editor religious wars
:-)

Brook

---------
Go ahead, make my data!

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:30:05 PDT
   From: "Arnt Richard Johansen" <enkefalos@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

>  > with a Lojban word-list spell checker,
>
>Should be a matter of assembling a dictionary and giving it ispell
>(for emacs) or framemaker, making sure to tell it that this is a
>different language.

I think this is the right time to brag about my experimental Lojban Ispell
dictionary.  It is not very comprehensive, but I've included the official
word lists, and some of my own words.

Get it at: http://people.fix.no/arj/lojban/lojban-ispell-hashfile.html

-ARJ


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 06:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
   From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

    ... studies on font readability (as I recall), indicate that what
    you find easiest to read is what you learn to read on. ...

On the contrary, studies I read some years ago suggested that while
practice is important, given equivalent degrees of practice, the
information content of the interface makes the difference.

If it is easier for reader to detect and recognize a difference among
letters or words, it is easier to read.  Hence, given equal experience
among readers, fonts with serifs were easier, since they provides more
information per character and per word.

--
    Robert J. Chassell                  bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Rattlesnake Enterprises             http://www.rattlesnake.com


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
   From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

   Sure, but the point that I was trying to make was that typography and
   orthography was orthogonal to the question of a word processor.

Yes, they certainly are, or should be.

   And typography, well, I'm a structured markup fiend. Mixing
   typography with word processing seems misguided and encourages lots
   of visually ugly documents...

I am confused here.  Suppose you are writing on cyrillic, Tibetan,
and latin: do you use structured markup for the different fonts?  I
don't think so.  I suspect you use markup for whether your Tibetan or
Korean `Watch Out!' should be emphasized or not.

Surely, structured markup is orthogonal to what glyphs used for
straight text?


   ... from taking a book from outline to camera-ready form...

Gosh, a voice from out of history. :-)  `Camera-ready' is only one kind
of output format.

For the past couple of decades people I know have read
manuals both online and printed: books go from outline to *two* forms,
one them `camera-ready', the other `display' ready.  The two forms
provide different resolutions, different methods of search, different
portabilities, and so on.  To some extent, each is truly different;
but in other ways, the differences are sufficiently regular that a
single manuscript can be the source for both kinds of output format.


   Um, clearly you prefer GNU Emacs - the Lucid/X Emacs branch has
   supported non-fixed width fonts for years :-)

   Sorry, just had to take the cheap shot in the editor religious wars
   :-)

Oh, I know that.  The problem is and has been for some years strictly
legal:  the Lucid/X Emacs people are unable to obtain the kinds of
disclaimers/assignments that the lawyers I deal with require for wide
spread, safe distribution.

Without such disclaimers/assignments, it is easy for someone to repeat
what has happened in the past, namely to stick some code into a
program that gets used by major companies, then threaten the major
companies.  Some people that tried this in the past got money from
several companies (out of court settlements) until faced in court by
DEC, at which point they lost.  Sure, someone trying this with
Lucid/Xemacs would, we hope, lose because the Xemacs people have got
legally smarter over the years and they have a track record, but the
inclusion decision is still is a question of how much time and money
you want to put into legal questions rather than programming
questions.

Most programmers I know rightfully hate these sorts of legal concern;
or else they pay little attention on account they lack experience and
street smarts.

--
    Robert J. Chassell                  bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Rattlesnake Enterprises             http://www.rattlesnake.com


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)
           From: Pycyn@xxx.xxx
      2. RE: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)
           From: trevor hill <thill@xxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: abstracting from cmene
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      4. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      5. Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      6. Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)
           From: Lionel Vidal <nessus@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      7. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
      8. Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:54:06 EDT
   From: Pycyn@xxx.xxx
Subject: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)

Enough of this airy-fairy orthographic fights, even if they are about the
work of
reasonably proficient linguists.  Let's think about orthographies for real
languages here. Most of the features that have been suggested exist in at
least one set of real
orthographies, the Indic, e.g. Devanagari, for which typesetting facilities
already exist
(though I don't know the name of any of the various versions).  Ligatures are
available for almost any combo you like but are generally fairly transparent,
vowels can be collapsed to diacritic dimensions within words or expanded to
the same size as consonants, semivowels exist in both consonantal and
vowel-like forms, . and ' have natural -- and appropriately sized --
expressions, diphthongs have special forms quite different from vowel
sequences, etc. etc.  And very few forms are easily confused with one
another, despite sharing a history with Hebrew, Armenian and Siamese
orthographies, of which the muddle factors are often claimed.
    On broader issues, I again note that some parts of ProtoThinker(tm) might
be used as a step toward a translation program into/out of Lojban.  AndI like
the idea of a Lojban word processor with all the peripherals (word check,
spelling completion, place structure, compound analyser and grammar check).
pc


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:37:15 -0600
   From: trevor hill <thill@xxxxx.xxxx
Subject: RE: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)


	So...  IMHO, typography will grow naturally out of the orthography
one creates...  so we really don't have to worry about that.  What we have
to worry about is mapping our set of phonemes to a set of simple glyphs,
that work together to make learning and reading easy and logical...

	This, as you all know, is not as easy as it sounds, because the set
of simple glyphs that can be written easily, and look cool/nice is small...
Also, choosing individual glyphs for phonemes doesn't guarantee that they
will look good together when composed with a 'logical' method... Therefore,
IMHO one has to create the orthography first from the perspective of the
visual representation: What do you want the text to look like in this
orthography?  Then slowly work from that end towards your logical concept of
phonemes and morphemes and all that, and mesh them together somehow...

	The main point is, if you just work from the language to the script,
rather than the other way around, you end up with a really nasty script.  I
invented a script recently, and it really kicks ass....  written vertically,
top to bottom, left to right, it comes out looking like each word is a big
hiragana character.....  anyway, it achieves graphical 'logic' and beauty
because that was the first consideration..... :)

	With regard to current world scripts, i really think hangul is the
most 'logical' of scripts in existance today, from our perspective...  I've
wrestled repeatedly over the years to find ways to express more sounds in
hangul, so as to adapt it to lojban, for instance, but have always been
unsatisfied with the result.....  :(  I think we really should have people
individually invent scripts of their own for lojban, and choose the best
one...  that would preserve the creative integrity of the script, and maybe
we could come up with a really cool one.... ;)

	ki'e co'o

	trevor hill
	thill@xxxxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:18:52 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: abstracting from cmene



la robin cusku di'e
>  I started thinking about the question in Lojbanic terms
>and ran up against the problem that I can't, if I understand the
>Book correctly, say {la ka biNOC.}, since the word immediately
>following {la} has to be a cmene, so it would be read as a
>reference to someone called "Cabinoche".

Actually, {ka} can follow {la}. Anything that can follow {le}
can also follow {la}. The problem there is that {binoc}
is not a selbri, and thus it cant follow {ka}. You could use, for
example, {la ka me la biNOC} as a name.

>  Is there a simple way
>to say "Binocheness" other than {tu'a la biNOC.}, which is too
>vague for what I had in mind?

But you don't want the name "Binocheness", you want
the property, {le ka me la biNOC}.

co'o mi'e xorxes


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

Robert J. Chassell writes:
 > From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
 >
 > David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
[....]
 >    And typography, well, I'm a structured markup fiend. Mixing
 >    typography with word processing seems misguided and encourages lots
 >    of visually ugly documents...
 >
 > I am confused here.  Suppose you are writing on cyrillic, Tibetan,
 > and latin: do you use structured markup for the different fonts?  I
 > don't think so.  I suspect you use markup for whether your Tibetan or
 > Korean `Watch Out!' should be emphasized or not.

You don't use the structured markup to denote what *font* you are
using but you might very well use it to denote what *language* you are
using.  Whether or not you do this depends on exactly what kind of
doucment you are writing.

Suppose you are writing a novel that includes fluently multilingual
characters.  The *structure* may have more to do with who says what
than it does with what language someone is speaking.

Now suppose you are writing a textbook for learning a foreign
language. Here, clearly, marking the language can be quite important,
whether or not the languages in the book use the same glyphs or
not. For example, writing a textbook on Russian, sections will
describe Cyrillic, including the characters, but the language will be
English (well, it will if *I* write it :-)

 > Surely, structured markup is orthogonal to what glyphs used for
 > straight text?

Yes of course - I wasn't suggesting that.

Glyphs are not fonts. Unicode does not describe a font. Unicode
describes characters which have stereotypical appearances (the
glyph).  You need a font to render something - that's typography, not
word-processing.

Hmmm. I suppose I'm getting definitional here, so here's how I'm using
things:

character - value in some sort of script

glyph - the archetypical appearance of a character; alt. the
particular appearance of a character represented by a particular font.

Word processing - rearranging characters (usually in groups, i.e.,
words :-)

(Structured) markup - notating the logical structure of a string of
characters.

Formatting - Mapping markup to particular renderings.

Typography - The subset of formatting concerned with fonts and
placement of glyphs (in sense 2 above).

Font - a set of graphical symbols with a mapping from symbol to
character. The map need not be complete, but is usually a function
(i.e., one graphical symbol is associated with one character. One
character may have many representations in the font).

 >    ... from taking a book from outline to camera-ready form...
 >
 > Gosh, a voice from out of history. :-)  `Camera-ready' is only one kind
 > of output format.

Of course.

 > For the past couple of decades people I know have read
 > manuals both online and printed: books go from outline to *two* forms,
 > one them `camera-ready', the other `display' ready.

Right - of course. This wasn't a manual. This was a textbook. Six
years ago (when I wrote it), Addison Wesley wasn't about to consider
distributing a textbook on CD ROM. Three years ago (when I was working
on the revision), they were, and had that project continued, I would
have produced both camera ready and display ready copy, most likely
from one SGML source.

 > Oh, I know that.  The problem is and has been for some years strictly
 > legal:  the Lucid/X Emacs people are unable to obtain the kinds of
 > disclaimers/assignments that the lawyers I deal with require for wide
 > spread, safe distribution.

Ah, of course. Lawyers, gotta love em.


[...]

 > Most programmers I know rightfully hate these sorts of legal concern;
 > or else they pay little attention on account they lack experience and
 > street smarts.

I hope I'm the former, not the latter :-)

Brook

---------
A computer's attention span is as long as it's power cord.

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
   From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

   You don't use the structured markup to denote what *font* you are
   using but you might very well use it to denote what *language* you are
   using.

Yes, you are right.  That would be a good way to do it.

    Robert J. Chassell                  bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Rattlesnake Enterprises             http://www.rattlesnake.com


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:02:46 +0200
   From: Lionel Vidal <nessus@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)

* trevor hill (thill@xxxxx.xxxx
> 	With regard to current world scripts, i really think hangul is the
> most 'logical' of scripts in existance today, from our perspective...  I've
> wrestled repeatedly over the years to find ways to express more sounds in
> hangul, so as to adapt it to lojban, for instance, but have always been
> unsatisfied with the result.....  :(  I think we really should have people
> individually invent scripts of their own for lojban, and choose the best
> one...  that would preserve the creative integrity of the script, and maybe
> we could come up with a really cool one.... ;)

Yes, I also think that a Hangul like script would suit most 'logically' our
perspective:  one `character' (actually a group of syllabic entities) per gismu,
and one per cmavo would give a neat visual clue on the language structure.
But to get a clear script with a graphically pleasant effect is not that easy :-(

Lionel Vidal.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:57:54 -0700
   From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

David Brookshire Conner wrote:
> Ivan A Derzhanski writes:
>  > The Chinese script is always monospace, and yet looks gorgeous,
>  > doesn't it?
>
> Yes, it does look gorgeous, especially when written by someone that
> knows what they are doing. However, keep in mind that the parts of
> Chinese orthography closest to what might be called "letters" are
> *not* monospace - many Chinese characters are composed of several
> other characters, squished and cropped to fit into the "monospace"
> rectangle of a Chinese "character".

True, but still in the written form of the Chinese language there is
*something* that is a sort of unit -- albeit not a minimal one --
in three ways: (1) phonetically (a syllable), (2) morphologically (a
morpheme) and (3) spatially (a fixed width).  It doesn't matter
so much that characters may or may not contain several components,
just as syllables may contain 1 to 4 phonemes (plus tone).

I'm not advocating transferring the Chinese model to just any other
language, just pointing out that spatial uniformity can work well
when it is linked to uniformity in other, language-specific aspects.
Korean groups (and squishes, in the process) letters into written
syllables, which are all of the same size.  That works very well
for a language with such a well-defined syllable structure, but
I wouldn't recommend it for English or Russian.

> I think I haven't made clear one of my concerns about monospace
> fonts for lojban. It's a matter of "visual tone." [...]
> I would suggest that Chinese orthography generally exhibits
> this characteristic. I can't think of a single natural orthography
> that *doesn't* particularly exhibit this trait.

There are some, but they're not among the most widespread ones.
In books on writing systems I've certainly seen samples of some
particularly incoherent ones (usually, as in the case of Japanese,
resulting from the mix of two or more very different systems).

> Now that I think of it, though, studies on font readability (as
> I recall), indicate that what you find easiest to read is what you
> learn to read on. Hence, most Europeans find sans serif just dandy
> for book fonts, while most Americans find serif easier.

This European finds sans serif hideous as a book fount.  As for
monospace, it gets much easier to read if word space needn't be
of constant width and the lines are justified.

>  > Do you like the fact that all Lojban gismu are of equal length,
>  > measured in phonemes/letters (5 in all, 3 consonants and 2 vowels)?
>
> Hmmm. I'm neutral on it.

I like it very much.

>  > Well, I want the next logical thing:  I also want them to be of
>  > equal width on paper.
>
> Why is *width* the next logical thing? Why not height?

Because it is the width of the whole that is derived from the number
and the kind of the components, which is just what is uniform within
a syntactic category in Lojban.

>  > I'd like every consonant to be as wide as every other, and every
>  > vowel as wide as every other (perhaps less wide than the consonants).
[...]
>  > It makes sense for {' , .} to be much narrower than the letters.
>
> Which nukes the uniform width bit......

It doesn't quite nuke it.  It does away with the fact that, say,
{l} and {m} are of the same category and {i} is of a different one,
but {l} and {i} are as wide as one another, and much narrower than {m}.

> This is quite a stimulating discussion - I am enjoying it immensely
> (and if I sound strident or shrill anywhere, please don't take it as a
> personal attack - I don't intend such and am merely getting excited by
> an enjoyable discussion).

My position exactly.

--
"mu' Dajatlhpa', reH DajatlhlaH,  <soxan tA nagoftI, tawAnI-^s goft,
'ach Dajatlhpu'DI', DughatlhlaH"   walI gofteH rA bAz natwAn nehoft>
            (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski                     <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 05:46:56 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]


>From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>     ... studies on font readability (as I recall), indicate that what
>     you find easiest to read is what you learn to read on. ...
>
>On the contrary, studies I read some years ago suggested that while
>practice is important, given equivalent degrees of practice, the
>information content of the interface makes the difference.
>
>If it is easier for reader to detect and recognize a difference among
>letters or words, it is easier to read.  Hence, given equal experience
>among readers, fonts with serifs were easier, since they provides more
>information per character and per word.

In particular, there has been a historical problem with Loglan/Lojban text
that is sans serif, because there is typically too little difference
between sans lower case ell and sans upper case eye (l and I).  TLI Loglan
capitalizes the first word of every sentence, and the Loglan 1 book has
many examples where there could be confusion between the words "la" and
"Ia", as well as "le" and "Ie", found at the start of sentences.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Tengwar [was Typesetting Lojban ]
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      2. Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)
           From: mark@xxx.xxx
      3. Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)
           From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: 22 Sep 1999 02:41:47 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Tengwar [was Typesetting Lojban ]

>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>[ split of threads again - this is the tengwar thread ]
>Ivan A Derzhanski writes:

> > But no primary-order tengwa for {'}, please!  Writing it as if
> > it were a voiceless velar fricative would make it more similar
> > to {k} or {x} that many other consonants would be.
>
>Here's the basic mode (where / stands in for a tengwa that is
>unused). Map it to the standard tengwar diagram:
>
>t p k /
>d b g /
>s f c '
>z v j x
>n m / /
>? / ? /
>
>The last row, the semi-vowels, I hadn't yet decided on whether it
>should include r and l or not. That decision was discussed briefly
>elsewhere. One thought was to switch tengwa depending on usage.
>
> > If it must
> > be a tengwa, let it be a very distinctive one such as yanta.
> > (This is why I've always opposed {h} for {'} in Roman script
> > -- it should be very prominent, but it is a Good Thing that it
> > doesn't look like a consonant.)
>
>Hmmm. I want to think about that. I used the short carrier for a comma
>- rather than two tehtar on one tengwa, the vowel separation becomes
>explicit with the short carrier which has no consonantal sound. I used
>the long carrier as a period (which works especially well for before a
>vowel, and is visually indicative after a consonant).
>
>Perhaps the short carrier is better for ' than for ,. ' is only ever
>between vowels, so the short carrier seems to be a bit better
>suited. Which means I need to think about the comma, now :-)

No, not short carrier.  Halla.  Halla is Your Friend.  It's even said to
represent /h/ in some modes by JRRT hisself.  And it's nice and
distinctive.  Didn't the Lojban mode in The Book use it? (didn't you design
that, Ivan?)

Or at least hyarmen.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: 22 Sep 1999 03:23:43 -0000
   From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)

>From: Pycyn@xxx.xxx
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:54:06 EDT
>
>From: Pycyn@xxx.xxx
>
>Enough of this airy-fairy orthographic fights, even if they are about the
>work of
>reasonably proficient linguists.  Let's think about orthographies for real
>languages here. Most of the features that have been suggested exist in at
>least one set of real
>orthographies, the Indic, e.g. Devanagari, for which typesetting facilities
>already exist
>(though I don't know the name of any of the various versions).  Ligatures are
>available for almost any combo you like but are generally fairly transparent,
>vowels can be collapsed to diacritic dimensions within words or expanded to
>the same size as consonants, semivowels exist in both consonantal and
>vowel-like forms, . and ' have natural -- and appropriately sized --
>expressions, diphthongs have special forms quite different from vowel
>sequences, etc. etc.  And very few forms are easily confused with one
>another, despite sharing a history with Hebrew, Armenian and Siamese
>orthographies, of which the muddle factors are often claimed.

Mmm... Let's see how Devanagari fares in my own experience...

For ' I presume you mean the visarga (the thingy that looks like a colon)
which has a similar sound; for ., um, the virama?  The little vowel takeout
marker?  Hmm.

Thing is, the ligatures aren't so neat and tidy as we'd hope.  There isn't
really every possible conjunct ligature; sometimes you fall back on virama
to make them.  Especially when dealing with a foreign language (like
Lojban) which may construct clusters alien to Indic languages.  [OBTW, take
everything I've said and will say with the following proviso: my exposure
to Devanagari is (almost) strictly via Sanskrit; other languages may have
some different solutions.]  Also, a few of the conjuncts aren't so
transparent, which I guess isn't a big deal.

In Sanskrit, you hardly ever have vowels abutting one another, even with a
visarga present, so I'm not even sure how you're *write* it in Sanskrit.
Use the initial/isolated form of the vowel after the hiatus?  I think Hindi
does something like that.  Since Sanskrit would require a virama after any
word that ends on a vowel (if it put spaces after every word, which it
doesn't necessarily), that matches well with virama == {.}, at least after
cmene (not at all before vowel-initial words, though; that won't have an
analogue).  It'll look like really strange text no matter what, since you
pretty much HAVE to break after each word in Lojban, unless you mark
stress, and that looks *weird* in Devanagari, with all those tiny words.

The vowel-hiatus gets weird with diphthongs too... Devanagari has *true*
semivowels; wouldn't use its vowels that way.  And the rising diphthongs
even worse.  Falling diphthongs, SOME are written as vowels (ai, au), some
are not (ei, oi).  Erk, we can't even use the existing semivowels for
rising diphthongs, since the [w] is also what you'd have to use for [v].

Devanagari is too well-suited to its sandhi to do Lojban *well*.  But it
surely can do it somehow.  Let me poke at it a bit.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:49:56 -0700
   From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)

mark@xxx.xxx wrote:
> [OBTW, take everything I [...] will say with the following proviso:
> my exposure to Devanagari is (almost) strictly via Sanskrit [...].]

Whereas mine is predominantly via Hindi (that being the only
DN-written language wherewith I have any practical familiarity).

> Thing is, the ligatures aren't so neat and tidy as we'd hope.  There isn't
> really every possible conjunct ligature; sometimes you fall back on virama
> to make them.  Especially when dealing with a foreign language (like
> Lojban) which may construct clusters alien to Indic languages.

Indeed.  The ugly thing is that DN has several different strategies
for handling consonant clusters (both letters written in full with a
virama under C1, C1 written with a diacritic for C2=<r>, C2 written
with a diacritic for C1=<r> or a homorganic nasal, a more or less
transparent ligature, an unanalysable letter for the whole cluster),
and while that may be linguistically motivated in Sanskrit, it would
make no sense in Lojban.

Btw, would there still be an unwritten vowel, and if so, which one?
{a} (Sanskrit-like) or {y} (Hindi-like)?  The latter makes more sense
to me, since in Lojban {y} is a better candidate for special treatment,
being structurally different from the other vowels, though it's rare.

> In Sanskrit, you hardly ever have vowels abutting one another,
> even with a visarga present, so I'm not even sure how you'[d]
> *write* it in Sanskrit.  Use the initial/isolated form of the
> vowel after the hiatus?  I think Hindi does something like that.

Yes, exactly.  Works quite well.

> It'll look like really strange text no matter what, since you
> pretty much HAVE to break after each word in Lojban, unless you mark
> stress, and that looks *weird* in Devanagari, with all those tiny words.

It doesn't look weird at all; it looks like Hindi, where words of
one, two or three letters (plus diacritics) are very frequent.

> The vowel-hiatus gets weird with diphthongs too... [...]
> And the rising diphthongs even worse.  Falling diphthongs,
> SOME are written as vowels (ai, au), some are not (ei, oi).

The falling diphthongs are not a problem; scores of Indic, Dravidian
etc. languages have augmented the system with their own conventions
for writing vowels that Sanskrit doesn't have.  How about a combination
of the diacritics for <e>/<o> and <i>?  Not at all sure how one would
handle the rising diphthongs, though.

> Erk, we can't even use the existing semivowels for rising diphthongs,
> since the [w] is also what you'd have to use for [v].

Not necessarily; you can recycle <bh> for {v} (that's only natural,
since <ph> would probably become {f}) and then use <v> for prevocalic
asyllabic {u}.

--
"mu' Dajatlhpa', reH DajatlhlaH,  <soxan tA nagoftI, tawAnI-^s goft,
'ach Dajatlhpu'DI', DughatlhlaH"   walI gofteH rA bAz natwAn nehoft>
            (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski                     <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 2 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: lei skami tanru pe la xod
           From: zeno@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx
      2. Re: lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:31:44 GMT
   From: zeno@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: lei skami tanru pe la xod

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 01:54:43 -0400, lojbab wrote:

>How about the Internet as a medium of communication/transmission xe benji
>then while the WWW sites are the transmitters.  Alternatively, the Internet
>is a dargu ciste, or a ciste dargu - a road system between points, some of
>which are WWW sites (which then become some kind of se dargu or possibly te
>ciste.

I have no idea what I am talking about, but why isn't the internet
"[lo] jbini ciste" or "[lo] binci'e"?  In English, "internet" simply
means "between [type-of] network".

I also see discussions here which say that perhaps a distinction is
not needed between the web and the internet.  But the internet to me
is mostly Usenet, so would the term for Usenet be the same as the term
for the WWW?  What about my brother in law, who only signs on in text
mode to telnet to Hawaii and run on his Unix system, is Telnet the
same as the WWW?

Which brings to mind other questions...

I have the following definition from the searchable gismu dictionary:

     fonxa [ fon ] telephone
     x1 is a telephone transceiver/modem attached to system/network x2
     (cf. , tcana)

Does this mean that lojban does not differentiate between a telephone
and a modem?

Also, if such things are specifically stated with loanwords, then from
what language should the loanwords be taken?  I think I read that
loanwords should be taken from the language of the inventor who coined
the words.  But let's say that "vinji" did not exist for "aircraft",
and the Americans say they invented the aircraft, and the French say
they invented the aircraft, from which language should the loanword be
taken?  What about other aircraft like "rotorcraft", "jet", "turbine",
"turboprop", etc.; or parts like "propeller", "landing gear",
"cockpit", "canopy", "airfoil", "aileron", "fuselage", "strut",
"rudder", "elevator", etc.?

If one writes a book on architecture in Lojban, and needs words like
"entablature", "pediment", "pilaster", "balustrade", "colonnade",
"capital", "niche", "tympanum", "socle", "architrave", "frieze",
"cornice", etc., from where does one take the loanwords for such
ancient structures, Greek or Latin (even though they were used before
they were coined in these ancient tongues)?  And if one is supposed to
coin new words for these, won't lojban run out of words?  Or would
these not be limited to 5 characters?

Sorry for all the ignorant questions, it should be quite obvious to
everyone that I know nothing of lojban :-!

Thank you,
     - Zeno


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:17:13 +0200
   From: araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: lujvo for "forgive"?

On 17 Sep 99, at 17:38, mark@xxx.xxx wrote:

> From: mark@xxx.xxx
>
> >From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> >Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:08:02 PDT
> >
> >From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >.e'o ma? lujvo zoi glic. forgive glic.
> >[li'o]
> >>.i .e'uru'e zo zernalmorji peipe'i
> >
> >i pe'i zo zernalmorji cu matybanzu lujvo
> >la'e zo fraxu
>
> .oiro'aroe .i ri'a ma paunai mi o'onaise'i na ganse zo fraxu
>
> ~mark
>

coi rodo mi cnino

.i pe'i le nu finti cei broda lo lujvo be le smuni be lo gismu cu na'e
xlali .i ca le nu finti lo vlajvesmuste bau la lojban cu bilga le nu
broda .ije ri cfugau le bangu .i ku'i pe'i la'e zo zernalmorji cu na'e
satci smuni zo fraxu .i zo zernalmorji cu bridi fi di'e pe'i
.i zoi gy. m1 doesn't remember m2 (du'u) about crime m3=z1,
(criminal to z2) .gy
.i ku'i zo fraxu cu bridi fi di'e
.i zoi gy. x1 forgives x2 for event/state/activity x3 .gy
.i le se fraxu na srana le terbri be fi zo zernalmorji .i ji'a kakne le nu
ce'u morji fi le zekri gi'eku'i fraxu fi le zekri .i le nu fraxu cu nibli le
nu le se fraxu cu zungi e le nu le fraxu cu na'e sfasa le se fraxu
.ija'ebo mi stidi tu'a zo zugnalsfa noi se smuni la'e
zoi gy. s1 doesn't punish (forgives) s2=z1 (guilty one) for infraction
s3=z2 (event/state/action) .gy
zi'e noi mutce co jibni zo fraxu

.i co'o mi'e adam
Adam Raizen
araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx
------------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                         --George Washington


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 2 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. EU patent system lobbying next month
           From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xxx
      2. Re: Lojban Web Ring
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:37:33 +0200 (CEST)
   From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@xxx.xxx
Subject: EU patent system lobbying next month

I will be in Brussels with a multi-company lobby delegation to talk to the
people in charge of designing the "EU community patent" next month.

Please see if you can sign the petition and possibly supply a Lojban
version

 	http://swpat.ffii.org/lojban/

That might give me the boost that is necessary for me to be able to bring
up the subject of multilinguality and Logical Language.  Otherwise we will
focus entirely on the threat of software patents.  For that, see

	http://www.freepatents.org

The EU is engaging in a lot of half-baked reforms, and this is a rare
opportunity to bring in some progressive ideas.  The concept of Logical
Language is ideal for the EU patent system, which requires

- logically complicated combinations of simple abstract concepts
- capability to construct huge sentences without creating ambiguity
- multilinguality

This could even create jobs for Lojbanists.

If Lojban is to succeed anywhere, we must act here.

Please sign and also consider coming with us to Brusells.

-phm



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:37:29 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban Web Ring

xod wrote:

> From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
>
> In order to encourage the creation of lojbanic websites, and to
> better connect those that exist, I have created the Lojban Web Ring. If
> you have a site in or about lojban, you should join! I will help you if
> you have trouble.
>
> http://decadezero.org/lojban_webring.html
>

Just a note to encourage other people to sign up - I seem to be the only person to have
done this so far!

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 6 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. orthography
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      2. cecla fanta flalu
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
      4. Arabic orthography
           From: "Ben" <bwebste@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
      5. re: cacla fanta flalu
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      6. Re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:53:18 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: orthography

I have tried to write things in Tengwar, but i don't find it
very compatible with Lojbanic word structures. I much prefer
the Apollonian alphabet, which may be found in: The Dictionary
of Occult, Hermetic and Alchemical Sigils. I don't know if it
is available online anywhere...


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:13:03 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: cecla fanta flalu

.u'inaisai .a'unaicai mi do cajeba na tugni doi xriso je'unai
be le ka cecla prami .u'enai


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:08:13 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: cecla fanta flalu

On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, michael helsem wrote:

> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:13:03 PDT
> From: michael helsem <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [lojban] cecla fanta flalu
>
> From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> .u'inaisai .a'unaicai mi do cajeba na tugni doi xriso je'unai
> be le ka cecla prami .u'enai


.i pe'a ro le prenu poi prami le za'i zifre cu prami le zifre pilno po'u
le xarci cecla


-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:58:53
   From: "Ben" <bwebste@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Arabic orthography

Here's an arabic orthography for lojban I cooked up.

a   alif
b   ba
c   sheen
d   dal
e   dotless ya
f   fa
g   ka with extra line
i   ya
j   jeem
k   kaf
l   lam
m   meem
n   noon
o   waw with dot
p   ba with three dots
r   ra
s   seen
t   ta
u   waw
v   fa with three dots
x   kha
z   zayn





_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:02:32 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: re: cacla fanta flalu

lesi'o mulno za'i zifre keiku ge xanri lo bebna gi xlali jicmu
lo cecmu .a lo jecta .i lo te javni bezi'o po'o cu curmi ledu'u
lenu catra cu zifre


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:00:52 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: cecla fanta flalu

xod wrote:
la maikl. cusku di'e

> > .u'inaisai .a'unaicai mi do cajeba na tugni doi xriso je'unai
> > be le ka cecla prami .u'enai
>

.i la xod. cusku di'e

>
> .i pe'a ro le prenu poi prami le za'i zifre cu prami le zifre pilno po'u
> le xarci cecla

vi frili fa lenu terve'u lo cecla .i ku'i pe'i loi prenu pe la turkie na mutca zifre .i
lego'i cu zifre lenu snuti catra di'o lo specfari'i

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 6 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: re: cacla fanta flalu
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
      2. re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
      4. How to paint
           From: zeno@xxxxxxxx.xxx (Zeno)
      5. Re: How to paint
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
      6. meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question
           From: Peter Moulder <reiter@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: re: cacla fanta flalu

>From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>lesi'o mulno za'i zifre keiku ge xanri lo bebna gi xlali jicmu
>lo cecmu .a lo jecta .i lo te javni bezi'o po'o cu curmi ledu'u
>lenu catra cu zifre
>

.i le si'o zifre pe mulno ja cecmu cu xanri .i ku'i ma'a djica le za'i
prenu zifre goi ko'a .i ji'a mi djica ko'a po'e ro prenu

ni'o
.i do mo'u jinga darlu le du'u le za'i jecta claxu ku binxo le za'i jecta
.i ja'e le xamgu jecta goi ko'e cu sarcu le za'i zifre .i ji'a ko'e
se jicmu le prenu kulnu .i ji'a ko'e nitcu le zu'o bapli be le'a ro

.i la'e di'u cu nibli le du'u le za'i zifre ku se sarcu lei xarci




-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/





_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:15:49 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: re: cecla fanta flalu

.u'ecu'i ledo jufra .eji'a ledo se darlu cu dunli fi leka srera
ni'o .o'ocu'i
ni'o ru'a lo'e remna cu toldji lenu zo'e vo'a zunti .iku'i
ba'e na nibli leza'i fadni celnunponse .i lo cecla cu zenba
po'o lenu vlile
ni'o lesi'o ba'e prenu za'i zifre keiku goi ko'a cu ranmi je
daspo .i ko'a jalge lenu na'e jimpe ledu'u ma'a gonai gunma
renma gi sepli seldapydanlu ku .o'ocu'i bu'onai ju'a


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:19:58 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: re: cecla fanta flalu

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, michael helsem wrote:

> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:15:49 PDT
> From: michael helsem <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [lojban] re: cecla fanta flalu
>
> From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> .u'ecu'i ledo jufra .eji'a ledo se darlu cu dunli fi leka srera
> ni'o .o'ocu'i
> ni'o ru'a lo'e remna cu toldji lenu zo'e vo'a zunti .iku'i
> ba'e na nibli leza'i fadni celnunponse .i lo cecla cu zenba
> po'o lenu vlile
> ni'o lesi'o ba'e prenu za'i zifre keiku goi ko'a cu ranmi je
> daspo .i ko'a jalge lenu na'e jimpe ledu'u ma'a gonai gunma
> renma gi sepli seldapydanlu ku .o'ocu'i bu'onai ju'a
>


ro'inai ro'e .oinai
.i do co'u darlu .i ki'u mi na tcidu le do su'o logji

ni'o le zunti jecta goi ko'e cu nibli je citri le za'i terpa je pindi je
prenu catra .i le cecmu poi bandu ruble cu sarcu le nu ko'e .i ko'e nomoi
zukte le nu pu'u lebna be le bandu xarci pe cecmu keiku le za'i mulno
jitro




-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:38:29 GMT
   From: zeno@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: How to paint

Howdy all,

I have the lists from the following sites:
   http://www.lojban.org/files/wordlists/gismu
   http://www.lojban.org/files/wordlists/cmavo
   http://www.lojban.org/files/wordlists/lujvo-list

I have learned what most of the fields in the records are, but I have
some questions, and I wonder if anyone can help me.  I have the
following definitions from the lujvo-list and gismu files:

   cintyfaigau:cinta+fatri+gasnu:to paint something:$gasnu1 $fatri1
   $=cinta1 $fatri2

   cinta              paint
   x1 [material] is a paint of pigment/active substance x2, in a base
   of x3                         a    6    (cf. pixra, skari)

   fatri         fai  distribute
   x1 is distributed/allotted/allocated/shared among x2 with
   shares/portions x3; (x2/x3 fa'u)       8c  22    [also spread,
   shared out, apportioned; agentive distribution (= fairgau,
   fairzu'e)]; (cf. cmavo list fa'u, fendi, preja, katna, tcana)

   gasnu         gau  do
   x1 [person/agent] is an agentive cause of event x2;
   x1 does/brings about x2                      2e 142    (cf. cmavo
   list gau, gunka, zukte, rinka, fasnu for non-agentive events,
   jibri, kakne, pilno)

For cintyfaigau, I assume the sumti are not taken from gasnu, but are
the doohickeys listed with dollar signs after the definition, which
would make the sumti x1 from gasnu x1, x2 from fatri x1, x3 from cinta
x1, and x4 from fatri x2.  Can anyone tell me what the equals sign
means on x3 ($=cinta1)?

If I am right, then I would have:
   x1 from gasnu person/agent
   x2 from fatri as what is spread (paint?)
          (but since x3 seems to also be paint, perhaps this
           is the thing painted if one is painting a picture of
           something?)
   x3 from cinta as material (paint?)
   x4 from fatri as what x3 is spread among (on?)

I paint the house = mi cintyfaigau fo la zdani
I paint the scenery = mi cintyfaigau la jvinu
I paint a picture = mi cintyfaigau fo la pixra

I don't know if the "la"s are supposed to be there when "fo" is used.
Obviously, I don't know what the heck I'm doing :-!  What am I doing?

- Zeno



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:36:48 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: How to paint

At 06:38 AM 9/26/99 +0000, Zeno wrote:
>From: zeno@xxxxxxxx.xxx (Zeno)
>I have the lists from the following sites:
>    http://www.lojban.org/files/wordlists/gismu
>    http://www.lojban.org/files/wordlists/cmavo
>    http://www.lojban.org/files/wordlists/lujvo-list
>
>I have learned what most of the fields in the records are, but I have
>some questions, and I wonder if anyone can help me.  I have the
>following definitions from the lujvo-list and gismu files:
>
>    cintyfaigau:cinta+fatri+gasnu:to paint something:$gasnu1 $fatri1
>    $=cinta1 $fatri2
>
>    cinta              paint
>    x1 [material] is a paint of pigment/active substance x2, in a base
>    of x3                         a    6    (cf. pixra, skari)
>
>    fatri         fai  distribute
>    x1 is distributed/allotted/allocated/shared among x2 with
>    shares/portions x3; (x2/x3 fa'u)       8c  22    [also spread,
>    shared out, apportioned; agentive distribution (= fairgau,
>    fairzu'e)]; (cf. cmavo list fa'u, fendi, preja, katna, tcana)
>
>    gasnu         gau  do
>    x1 [person/agent] is an agentive cause of event x2;
>    x1 does/brings about x2                      2e 142    (cf. cmavo
>    list gau, gunka, zukte, rinka, fasnu for non-agentive events,
>    jibri, kakne, pilno)
>
>For cintyfaigau, I assume the sumti are not taken from gasnu, but are
>the doohickeys listed with dollar signs after the definition, which
>would make the sumti x1 from gasnu x1, x2 from fatri x1, x3 from cinta
>x1, and x4 from fatri x2.  Can anyone tell me what the equals sign
>means on x3 ($=cinta1)?

The dollar signs are not separators indicating a new sumti, but were
markers for computer processing of the entries if I recall. The equal sign
means that this semantic role fills the same place as the previous sumti,
so there are only 3 places on the lujvo.

The lujvo-list file was the original work done by Nick Nicholas back in
1994.  I oughta someday get the working dictionary file uploaded.  It has
much clearer text:

cintyfaigau:cinta+fatri+gasnu:to paint something: x1 = gasnu1 (do), x2 =
fatri1 (distributed) = cinta1 (paint), x3 = fatri2 (receive share)

If it is already there (possible since I am not actively maintaining our
archive and have no idea what is and is not uploaded these days) the file
is jvoste1.key

lojbab


----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: 26 Sep 1999 18:52:21 +1000
   From: Peter Moulder <reiter@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question

Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx> writes:

> From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx>
>
> At 02:33 PM 7/27/99 -0400, Spigot wrote:
> >From: Spigot <spigot@xxxxxx.xxx>
> >
> >i'm trying to understand CAhA, its tricky.  the book sayson pg 243
> >that "lojban bridi without tense markers may not necessarily refer
> >to actual events: they may also refer to capabilities or potential
> >events."

> > [Goes on to question whether "lo ninmu cu nanmu" and "lo'e glipre
> > cu xabju le fi'ortu'a" are in fact paradoxes.]

> You can stretch potential tenses to such extremes, but the real
> examples are things like "inflammable", or to refer to someone being
> a swimmer, even though they are not actually in the water right now
> paddling.

I think the best way of understanding bridi without tense markers is
not to speak of potential, but to say that the stated relationship
holds somewhere in time and space.  This is also the easiest way of
converting to logical statements (e.g. so that a computer can make
sense of it), and is much better defined than the concept of "potential".

This interpretation makes "la klim limna" (Klim is a swimmer / Klim
swims) true, whereas one cannot claim that "lo'e glipre cu xabju le
fi'ortu'a" unless one is claiming something extraordinary about the
future.

The discussion about "lo ninmu cu nanmu" raises an interesting
question.  Does that statement claim that something is simultaneously
ninmu and nanmu?  In order to use the description "lo ninmu" as
opposed to say "le ninmu", does the entity have to be ninmu for the
whole of the time that we're claiming it to be nanmu?  Are we saying
"some X, TimeSet: ninmu(X, TimeSet) & nanmu(X, TimeSet), or are we
merely saying "some X, TimeSet1, TimeSet2: ninmu(X, TimeSet1) &
nanmu(X, TimeSet2)"?

Btw, "inflamable" already expresses its "potentialiality" through the
-able suffix, i.e. the potentiality is part of the meaning of the word
(whether we're talking about "inflamable" or "jelca") rather than
through tense.

pjm.


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 6 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)
           From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
      2. Re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
      3. Re: meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question
           From: Peter Moulder <reiter@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      4. Re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      5. Re: meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      6. Is anyone else getting this kind of message?
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: 27 Sep 1999 02:57:30 -0000
   From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Lojban Orthography (has been several other things)

>Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:49:56 -0700
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
>Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
>CC: lojban@xxxxxxx.xxx
>
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
>
>mark@xxx.xxx wrote:
>> [OBTW, take everything I [...] will say with the following proviso:
>> my exposure to Devanagari is (almost) strictly via Sanskrit [...].]
>
>Whereas mine is predominantly via Hindi (that being the only
>DN-written language wherewith I have any practical familiarity).

Nifty; so we complement each other (hey, nice shoes, Ivan).

>> Thing is, the ligatures aren't so neat and tidy as we'd hope.  There isn't
>> really every possible conjunct ligature; sometimes you fall back on virama
>> to make them.  Especially when dealing with a foreign language (like
>> Lojban) which may construct clusters alien to Indic languages.
>
>Indeed.  The ugly thing is that DN has several different strategies
>for handling consonant clusters (both letters written in full with a
>virama under C1, C1 written with a diacritic for C2=<r>, C2 written
>with a diacritic for C1=<r> or a homorganic nasal, a more or less
>transparent ligature, an unanalysable letter for the whole cluster),
>and while that may be linguistically motivated in Sanskrit, it would
>make no sense in Lojban.
>
>Btw, would there still be an unwritten vowel, and if so, which one?
>{a} (Sanskrit-like) or {y} (Hindi-like)?  The latter makes more sense
>to me, since in Lojban {y} is a better candidate for special treatment,
>being structurally different from the other vowels, though it's rare.

Mmm.  NEED there be an unwritten vowel?  Maybe we can just decree that all
vowels shall be written.  Makes the virama unnecessary, but then the period
in lojban is also not strictly *needed*, and obviates the assymmetry in the
existence of conjunct ligatures for SOME but not all consonant-clusters.
We'd use the long-A for {a}, of course.  Possibly even use long-form vowels
for all of them, and using the visually salient short-i for {y}.  Just a
thought.

I note that in the Sanskrit I learned, although the vowel was spelled {a}
in transliteration, it was pronounced something very close to Lojban {y}
(even in tapes from learned and practiced speakers).

>> It'll look like really strange text no matter what, since you
>> pretty much HAVE to break after each word in Lojban, unless you mark
>> stress, and that looks *weird* in Devanagari, with all those tiny words.
>
>It doesn't look weird at all; it looks like Hindi, where words of
>one, two or three letters (plus diacritics) are very frequent.

(*flips through some Hindi texts*)... Yes, good point.  I got too used to
those looooong strings of letters Sanskrit produces.

>> The vowel-hiatus gets weird with diphthongs too... [...]
>> And the rising diphthongs even worse.  Falling diphthongs,
>> SOME are written as vowels (ai, au), some are not (ei, oi).
>
>The falling diphthongs are not a problem; scores of Indic, Dravidian
>etc. languages have augmented the system with their own conventions
>for writing vowels that Sanskrit doesn't have.  How about a combination
>of the diacritics for <e>/<o> and <i>?  Not at all sure how one would
>handle the rising diphthongs, though.

OK, my limited exposure taking its toll again.  Hmm, since DN vowels
are pronounced *after* the consonant they're written on, it would almost
make more sense to use the <i> diacritic on full-mode <e>/<o>.  And it
would look no worse (better, even, since <e> and <o> diacritics are more
prone to confusion, differing as thet do only in a vertical stroke).

>> Erk, we can't even use the existing semivowels for rising diphthongs,
>> since the [w] is also what you'd have to use for [v].
>
>Not necessarily; you can recycle <bh> for {v} (that's only natural,
>since <ph> would probably become {f}) and then use <v> for prevocalic
>asyllabic {u}.

Eh, I suppose.  Would take some getting used to, but then the whole thing
would.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: 27 Sep 1999 03:02:59 -0000
   From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: cecla fanta flalu

>Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:00:52 +0300
>From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
>Organization: Bilkent University
>
>vi frili fa lenu terve'u lo cecla .i ku'i pe'i loi prenu pe la turkie
                                                                ^^^^^^
Back at my old job.  Cmene alert!

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:05:42 +1000 (EST)
   From: Peter Moulder <reiter@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question

la robin. cusku di'e

On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Robin Turner wrote:

> la pityr. cusku di'e

> > Are we saying "some X, TimeSet: ninmu(X, TimeSet) & nanmu(X, TimeSet),
> > or are we merely saying "some X, TimeSet1, TimeSet2: ninmu(X,
> > TimeSet1) & nanmu(X, TimeSet2)"?

> I think semantically {lo ninmu cu nanmu} is posssible (under your second
> interprtation.  Pragmatically, it stinks, unless _very_ well supported by
> context, so the listener can fill it out, for example
>
> lo ninmu pu nanmu
> lo ninmu ba nanmu
> lo ninmu cu binxo nanmu

Or indeed "lo [pu] ninmu ca nanmu".

Yes, I think you're right (on both counts :) ).

Only today/yesterday did I notice an example in the reference grammar that
uses a tense marker between "lo" and its selbri.

I would guess from the fact that tense markers are possible between "lo"
and its selbri indicates that the meaning of "lo P" without any tense
marker on P has the same tense connotations as "da cu P", i.e. the tense
under which P is true is simply unspecified.

So AFAICT, "lo P cu Q" means exactly the same as "lo Q cu P";
both mean "some X, Tense1, Tense2: P(X, Tense1) & Q(X, Tense2)".

co'o mi'e pityr.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:53:05 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: cecla fanta flalu

la mark. cusku di'e

> >
> >vi frili fa lenu terve'u lo cecla .i ku'i pe'i loi prenu pe la turkie
>                                                                 ^^^^^^
> Back at my old job.  Cmene alert!

??  {prenu} is a cmene?  Presumably the spacing has come out strange;
{turkie} should have been {turkies} or something like that.  I normally use
a fu'ivla like {gugdrturkie}, {kulnrturkie}.  Incidentally, I've Lojbanised
"Turkey" like this because

  - {turki} can't be a fu'ivla because it has CVCCV structure.
  - the name of the country is "Trkiye", which by strict Lojbanisation
would be {TIRki,ie} which is orthographically unhelpful.  {turkie} comes
close enough to some pronunciations, and is easier to recognise for Turks
and non-Turks alike (reverse the last two letters and you get the German,
for example).

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:01:47 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question

la pityr. cusku di'e

> I would guess from the fact that tense markers are possible between "lo"
> and its selbri indicates that the meaning of "lo P" without any tense
> marker on P has the same tense connotations as "da cu P", i.e. the tense
> under which P is true is simply unspecified.
>
> So AFAICT, "lo P cu Q" means exactly the same as "lo Q cu P";
> both mean "some X, Tense1, Tense2: P(X, Tense1) & Q(X, Tense2)".

.ieru'e

In classical semantic terms, this holds:

lo gerku cu barda = at least one thing which is a dog, is big
lo barda cu gerku = at least one thing which is big, is a dog

But in terms of pragmatics (or cognitive semantics) there is a difference, at
least in English.  "Big dog" is not the intersection of the set of big things
and the set of dogs, but a dog which is big _by the standard of dogs_.
Similarly a small galaxy is not a small thing.  How Lojban handles this, I'm
not sure.  We can assume that

    lo gerku cu barda

is implicitly

    lo gerku cu barda fi lo'i gerku

but to read

    lo barda cu gerku

as

    lo barda be fi lo'i gerku cu gerku

takes a bit more imagination.

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:58:52 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Is anyone else getting this kind of message?



This is a reminder that the e-mail account which you have contacted no longer exists. To protect confidentiality, the message you sent has been deleted unread.

If your message was related to the work of the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry & Information Service, please re-send it to m.hood@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xx

If it was a personal message, please re-send it to andrew.smith20@xxxxxx.xxx

This reminder notice will be deleted on 1/1/2000

>>> robin 09/27/99 09:01 >>>

From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>

la pityr. cusku di'e

> I would guess from the fact that tense markers are possible between "lo"
> and its selbri indicates that the meaning of "lo P" without any tense
> marker on P has the same tense connotations as "da cu P", i.e. the tense
> under which P is true is simply unspecified.
>
> So AFAICT, "lo P cu Q" means exactly the same as "lo Q cu P";
> both mean "some X, Tense1, Tense2: P(X, Tense1) & Q(X, Tense2)".

.ieru'e

In classical semantic terms, this holds:

lo gerku cu barda = at least one thing which is a dog, is big
lo barda cu gerku = at least one thing which is big, is a dog

But in terms of pragmatics (or cognitive semantics) there is a difference, at
least in English.  "Big dog" is not the intersection of the set of big things
and the set of dogs, but a dog which is big _by the standard of dogs_.
Similarly a small galaxy is not a small thing.  How Lojban handles this, I'm
not sure.  We can assume that

    lo gerku cu barda

is implicitly

    lo gerku cu barda fi lo'i gerku

but to read

    lo barda cu gerku

as

    lo barda be fi lo'i gerku cu gerku

takes a bit more imagination.

co'o mi'e robin.

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx.xxx





_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: How to paint
           From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx
      2. Re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
      3. Re: re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      4. Re: lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      5. You want Lojban?  Ask for it!
           From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx
      6. Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
      7. Re: Is anyone else getting this kind of message?
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
      8. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
   From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: How to paint

Zeno scripsit:

>    cintyfaigau:cinta+fatri+gasnu:to paint something:$gasnu1 $fatri1
>    $=cinta1 $fatri2
>
>    cinta              paint
>    x1 [material] is a paint of pigment/active substance x2, in a base
>    of x3                         a    6    (cf. pixra, skari)
>
>    fatri         fai  distribute
>    x1 is distributed/allotted/allocated/shared among x2 with
>    shares/portions x3; (x2/x3 fa'u)       8c  22    [also spread,
>    shared out, apportioned; agentive distribution (= fairgau,
>    fairzu'e)]; (cf. cmavo list fa'u, fendi, preja, katna, tcana)
>
>    gasnu         gau  do
>    x1 [person/agent] is an agentive cause of event x2;
>    x1 does/brings about x2                      2e 142    (cf. cmavo
>    list gau, gunka, zukte, rinka, fasnu for non-agentive events,
>    jibri, kakne, pilno)
>
> For cintyfaigau, I assume the sumti are not taken from gasnu, but are
> the doohickeys listed with dollar signs after the definition, which
> would make the sumti x1 from gasnu x1, x2 from fatri x1, x3 from cinta
> x1, and x4 from fatri x2.

Basically correct, but see below.

>  Can anyone tell me what the equals sign
> means on x3 ($=cinta1)?

It means that this place is not present because it is semantically
the same as the previous place, fatri1.  In other words, the "paint" is
the same as "that which is distributed".

> I don't know if the "la"s are supposed to be there when "fo" is used.
> Obviously, I don't know what the heck I'm doing :-!  What am I doing?

Yes.  But "la" means "the one named", so "la zdani" is not "the home"
but "Home".  You probably want "le".

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@xxxx.xxx
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: 27 Sep 1999 14:03:08 -0000
   From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: cecla fanta flalu

>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:53:05 +0300
>From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
>Organization: Bilkent University
>
>From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
>
>la mark. cusku di'e
>
>> >
>> >vi frili fa lenu terve'u lo cecla .i ku'i pe'i loi prenu pe la turkie
>>                                                                 ^^^^^^
>> Back at my old job.  Cmene alert!
>
>??  {prenu} is a cmene?  Presumably the spacing has come out strange;
>{turkie} should have been {turkies} or something like that.

The spacing was fine... if you look at it in a monospace font. :) Yes,
"turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final consonant so
it isn't a valid cmene (and I really don't think we should be working with
fu'ivla with no category-rafsi at this point).  Hmm.  Should it have been
{turki,es}?  I don't know Turkish.

> I normally use
>a fu'ivla like {gugdrturkie}, {kulnrturkie}.  Incidentally, I've Lojbanised
>"Turkey" like this because
>
>  - {turki} can't be a fu'ivla because it has CVCCV structure.

Hmm, I thought that in theory you can have fu'ivla that looked like gismu,
but they are for the far future, when even Type 4 fu'ivla are long
accepted.  It doesn't matter if I'm wrong; you're still right that you
shouldn't use {turki} as a fu'ivla.  But that doesn't mean {gugdrturkie}
can't be.

>  - the name of the country is "Trkiye", which by strict Lojbanisation
>would be {TIRki,ie} which is orthographically unhelpful.  {turkie} comes
>close enough to some pronunciations, and is easier to recognise for Turks
>and non-Turks alike (reverse the last two letters and you get the German,
>for example).

Reasonable (so it seems that the ending {i,e} does make more sense)... but
don't forget either the classifier rafsi (to make it a Type 3 fu'ivla) or
the final consonant (to make it a cmene)!  The world's not ready for Type 4
fu'ivla yet, and you're using {la} here, so a cmene makes sense.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:53:49 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: re: cecla fanta flalu

pe'i lo'e jecta cu sarcu xlali i na zasti fa lo tadji be le nu
ganzu lo cecmu be'o poi mleca le ka xlali i lei flalu be fu
le jecta cu xlalymleca lei flalu be fu le tsarai a le ponse be
le vlirai xarci i je'u le citri be lei jecta cu culno lei nu terpa
kujoi lei nu pindi kujoi lei nu prenu catra i ku'i le citri be
lei jecta cu du le citri be lei remna i lei cecmu pe secau
lo jecta na snada le nu rivbi lei di'u xlali i le jecta cu se pilno
gi'enai rinka

ni'o le nu zifre cu xamgu i le nu snura cu xamgu
i su'oroi le nu da zifre cu fapro le nu de snura i lei cecmu cu
te flalu le nu makau te sepli le nu da zifre kei le nu de snura
i pe'i le nu so'i de snura le nu te renro lo danti cu vajni zmadu
le nu so'u da zifre le nu ponse lo xarci cecla iseki'ubo
mi zanru lei flalu be le nu fanta le nu cecla ponse

co'o mi'e xorxes


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:19:16 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: lujvo for "forgive"?


>coi rodo mi cnino

coi fi'i doi adam

i mi do tugni le du'u na'e xlali fa le nu finti loi lujvo
be le smuni be lo gismu i ji'a pe'i le do selstidi po'u
zo zugnalsfa cu mapti

co'o mi'e xorxes



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
   From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx
Subject: You want Lojban?  Ask for it!

At www.lasmo.com/translations/translation.asp is a page that asks
what languages you would like to see the lasmo.com Web site translated
into.  Lojban is among the list of languages!

So go ask for it!

(LASMO is an oil and gas exploration and production company.)

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@xxxx.xxx
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:11:54 -0700
   From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Yes, "turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final
> consonant so it isn't a valid cmene [...].  Hmm.  Should it have been
> {turki,es}?  I don't know Turkish.

No, but you know Hebrew, so you're familiar with the Semitic feminine
ending whose forms alternate between /t/ and /h/ or nothing (the former
typically under liaison, the latter usually before pause).  This is
an Arabic toponym, and if it is to be made into a cmene, the natural
choice for a final consonant is {t}.

--Ivan


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:07:59 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Is anyone else getting this kind of message?

At 11:58 AM 9/27/99 +0300, Robin Turner wrote:
>Reply-To: a.smith@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xx
>Subject: Re: [lojban] meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re:
>         question (Account No Longer Exists)

Yes, some site seems to be sending the bounce message to the poster rather
than to the list management.  Because the bouncing address given is not one
on the list, I have tried to email the guy before assuming I know which
list address is the one forwarding to the bad address (I think I know, but
would rather be sure).  Lojban List posters, please tolerate this message
for a couple more days while I give him a chance to respond.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:09:47 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

la .ivan. cusku di'e

> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> > Yes, "turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final
> > consonant so it isn't a valid cmene [...].  Hmm.  Should it have been
> > {turki,es}?  I don't know Turkish.
>
> No, but you know Hebrew, so you're familiar with the Semitic feminine
> ending whose forms alternate between /t/ and /h/ or nothing (the former
> typically under liaison, the latter usually before pause).  This is
> an Arabic toponym, and if it is to be made into a cmene, the natural
> choice for a final consonant is {t}.

The only Turkish dictionary I have in the office is the one without the
etymological notes, so I'm on shaky ground here.  "Trk" is obviously
Turkic, and the "iye" suffix certainly looks like the Arabic feminine ending
(most commonly found in Turkish in personal names e.g. "Nazmiye" as the
feminine form of "Nazim").  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to get
etymological with cmene and fu'ivla.  What we want is a word which suggests
"Turkey" or "Trkiye" (preferably both).  {turkie} or {turki,e} manage this
reasonably well (if you try saying them out loud, the result is pretty
similar).  A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive as possible, so I'd
still go for {s} .  Incidentally, {turkiet} sounds a bit too much like
"Trkiyat", the old word for "Trkoloji" for my tastes.

For "Turk" and "Turkish" in general (and porbably "Turkic"), I'd make
fu'ivla using {-turko}, so {kulnrturko} would be the culture of
Turkic-speaking peoples, as opposed to {kulnrturkie}, the culture of Turkey
(which includes considerable non-Turkic elements, of course).

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
      2. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
      3. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
      4. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: Thorild Selen <thorild@xxxxxx.xx.xxx
      5. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      6. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      7. Re: re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      8. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:47:00 -0700
   From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

Robin Turner wrote:
> la .ivan. cusku di'e
> > [_Trkiye_] is an Arabic toponym, and if it is to be made into
> > a cmene, the natural choice for a final consonant is {t}.
>
> The only Turkish dictionary I have in the office is the one without the
> etymological notes, so I'm on shaky ground here.  "Trk" is obviously
> Turkic, and the "iye" suffix certainly looks like the Arabic feminine
> ending (most commonly found in Turkish in personal names [...]).

Actually, it's a sequence of two Arabic suffixes: a derivative one (as
in _Iraq-i_) and an inflexional one indicating feminine gender: <-Iy-aT>.
The final <T> is [t] except before pause, where it's [h] or nothing.

> On the other hand, I wouldn't want to get etymological with cmene
> and fu'ivla.  [...]  A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive
> as possible, so I'd still go for {s}.

Acoustically a voiceless sibilant is about as obtrusive as they get,
and it makes the name sound sort of Greek, which in this case is
almost obscene (you know why).  I'd rather cauterise a cmene by
something motivated from the point of view of the source language
(the way Nic^jo N. called himself {nitcion.}, making use of a
consonant-final inflected form of his Esperanto name, rather than
attach a random consonant to the vowel-final citation form).

> Incidentally, {turkiet} sounds a bit too much like
> "Trkiyat", the old word for "Trkoloji" for my tastes.

The similarity is due to more than chance: both contain a feminine
/t/ (though in the other word it seems to be the plural <-At>).

--Ivan


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: 28 Sep 1999 15:56:20 -0000
   From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:11:54 -0700
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
>Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
>
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
>
>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Yes, "turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final
>> consonant so it isn't a valid cmene [...].  Hmm.  Should it have been
>> {turki,es}?  I don't know Turkish.
>
>No, but you know Hebrew, so you're familiar with the Semitic feminine
>ending whose forms alternate between /t/ and /h/ or nothing (the former
>typically under liaison, the latter usually before pause).  This is
>an Arabic toponym, and if it is to be made into a cmene, the natural
>choice for a final consonant is {t}.

Maybe true; I wasn't referring to the choice of the final consonant
(frankly, I never much cared for {s} as the "default" that it's sort of
become anyway.  I'd probably prefer {n} or {l}).  I was talking about using
{i,e} instead of {ie}.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: 28 Sep 1999 16:03:36 -0000
   From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:47:00 -0700
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
>Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
>
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
>
>Robin Turner wrote:

>> On the other hand, I wouldn't want to get etymological with cmene
>> and fu'ivla.  [...]  A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive
>> as possible, so I'd still go for {s}.
>
>Acoustically a voiceless sibilant is about as obtrusive as they get,
>and it makes the name sound sort of Greek, which in this case is
>almost obscene (you know why).  I'd rather cauterise a cmene by
>something motivated from the point of view of the source language
>(the way Nic^jo N. called himself {nitcion.}, making use of a
>consonant-final inflected form of his Esperanto name, rather than
>attach a random consonant to the vowel-final citation form).

Yeah, like I just said, I never cared for {s} as a final consonant unless
called-for.  Makes it sound plural to English-accustomed ears, too.

Actually, I always thought {nitcion.} was because it occurred in that form
in Esperanto, in accusative.  Either way.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:52:28 +0200
   From: Thorild Selen <thorild@xxxxxx.xx.xxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

Robin Turner writes:

 > "Turkey" or "Trkiye" (preferably both).  {turkie} or {turki,e} manage this
 > reasonably well (if you try saying them out loud, the result is pretty
 > similar).  A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive as possible, so I'd
 > still go for {s} .  Incidentally, {turkiet} sounds a bit too much like
 > "Trkiyat", the old word for "Trkoloji" for my tastes.

And incidentally, the country is actually called Turkiet in Swedish...
What does Trkoloji mean? (Have I missed something here?)

/Thorild


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:01:11 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

la torild. cusku di'e

>  > "Turkey" or "Trkiye" (preferably both).  {turkie} or {turki,e} manage this
>  > reasonably well (if you try saying them out loud, the result is pretty
>  > similar).  A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive as possible, so I'd
>  > still go for {s} .  Incidentally, {turkiet} sounds a bit too much like
>  > "Trkiyat", the old word for "Trkoloji" for my tastes.
>
> And incidentally, the country is actually called Turkiet in Swedish...

Hmm, if there are any other languages that do this, then {turki,et} might be worth
it, I suppose.

>
> What does Trkoloji mean? (Have I missed something here?)
>

It's the study of things Turkish/Turkic. "Trkiyat" is a word I've only seen in
dictionaries.  I imagine the Turkish Language Institute would prefer something
"purer" like "Trkbilim" ;-)

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200
   From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

de'i li 28/09/99, ti'u li 12:09 la robin cusku di'e

> From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
>
> la .ivan. cusku di'e
>
> > Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> > > Yes, "turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final
> > > consonant so it isn't a valid cmene [...].  Hmm.  Should it have been
> > > {turki,es}?  I don't know Turkish.
> >
> > No, but you know Hebrew, so you're familiar with the Semitic feminine
> > ending whose forms alternate between /t/ and /h/ or nothing (the former
> > typically under liaison, the latter usually before pause).  This is
> > an Arabic toponym, and if it is to be made into a cmene, the natural
> > choice for a final consonant is {t}.
>
> The only Turkish dictionary I have in the office is the one without the
> etymological notes, so I'm on shaky ground here.  "Trk" is obviously
> Turkic, and the "iye" suffix certainly looks like the Arabic feminine ending
> (most commonly found in Turkish in personal names e.g. "Nazmiye" as the
> feminine form of "Nazim").  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to get
> etymological with cmene and fu'ivla.  What we want is a word which suggests
> "Turkey" or "Trkiye" (preferably both).  {turkie} or {turki,e} manage this
> reasonably well (if you try saying them out loud, the result is pretty
> similar).  A final consonant needs to be as unobtrusive as possible, so I'd
> still go for {s} .  Incidentally, {turkiet} sounds a bit too much like
> "Trkiyat", the old word for "Trkoloji" for my tastes.
>
> For "Turk" and "Turkish" in general (and porbably "Turkic"), I'd make
> fu'ivla using {-turko}, so {kulnrturko} would be the culture of
> Turkic-speaking peoples, as opposed to {kulnrturkie}, the culture of Turkey
> (which includes considerable non-Turkic elements, of course).
>
> co'o mi'e robin.
>

I would suggest "tri'iki". I realize that it doesn't look much like most
languages pronunciation or spelling of Turkey, but since it's of the
form CCVVCV, and so conforms to the rafsi fu'ivla proposal in
section 16 of chapter 4 of the href grammar, I think it works best.

Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at
first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as
French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid
allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other
languages, but this often happens when learning another language.
(And we normally go for sound over spelling in Lojban, consider
"djan".) An English speaker learning French might not recognize
"Londres" at first glance, but if they're told it's the French way of
saying "London", it would probably be fairly easy to remember. In
the case of Lojban, the goal is to obtain the closest pronunciation
of the native pronunciation so as not to be culturally biased, and so
the "strange" Lojban form can easily be explained to a learner.

The last letter could be either "i" or "e"; I chose "i" because then it
matches the other vowels and creates a sort of a vowel harmony
(though not in the Turkish sense, I realize). In any event, it doesn't
really matter since rafsi fu'ivla aren't supposed to differ only in the
last letter.

co'o mi'e adam

Adam Raizen
araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx
------------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                         --George Washington


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200
   From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: re: cecla fanta flalu

de'i li 27/09/99 ti'u li 12:53 la xorxes cusku di'e

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> pe'i lo'e jecta cu sarcu xlali i na zasti fa lo tadji be le nu
> ganzu lo cecmu be'o poi mleca le ka xlali i lei flalu be fu
> le jecta cu xlalymleca lei flalu be fu le tsarai a le ponse be
> le vlirai xarci i je'u le citri be lei jecta cu culno lei nu terpa
> kujoi lei nu pindi kujoi lei nu prenu catra i ku'i le citri be
> lei jecta cu du le citri be lei remna i lei cecmu pe secau
> lo jecta na snada le nu rivbi lei di'u xlali i le jecta cu se pilno
> gi'enai rinka
>
> ni'o le nu zifre cu xamgu i le nu snura cu xamgu
> i su'oroi le nu da zifre cu fapro le nu de snura i lei cecmu cu
> te flalu le nu makau te sepli le nu da zifre kei le nu de snura
> i pe'i le nu so'i de snura le nu te renro lo danti cu vajni zmadu
> le nu so'u da zifre le nu ponse lo xarci cecla iseki'ubo
> mi zanru lei flalu be le nu fanta le nu cecla ponse
>
> co'o mi'e xorxes
>

do sruma le du'u le nu da ponse lo xacyce'a cu nibli le nu le ni
snura cu jdika .i to'ebo la'e ri drani .i lo'e xacyce'a ponse ka'e
sezyjaxybandu tu'a loi zergau .i ei ro prenu cu zifre le nu
sezyjaxybandu .ije go'i sepi'o lo xacyce'a va'o le nu ri sarcu .i ji'a le
nu xacyce'a ponse cu sarcu le nu bandu le nu zifre ku tu'a loi
zergau po'onai eji'a tu'a le jecta .i le nu xacyce'a ponse cecmu cu
nibli le nu zifre cecmu

ni'o to zo jax na se vasru le rafste .i mi jinvi le du'u zo jax rafsi zo
jai .i xu ri drani toi

co'o mi'e adam


Adam Raizen
araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx
------------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                         --George Washington


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: 29 Sep 1999 01:00:54 -0000
   From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

>From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200
>
>From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>I would suggest "tri'iki". I realize that it doesn't look much like most
>languages pronunciation or spelling of Turkey, but since it's of the
>form CCVVCV, and so conforms to the rafsi fu'ivla proposal in
>section 16 of chapter 4 of the href grammar, I think it works best.

FWIW, I'm not at all sanguine about Stage 4 fu'ivla pretty much ever, at
this point in the language (and possibly ever, period).  Lojban's tricky
enough with lujvo and rafsi and contextually-defined cmene; I'd rather not
add fu'ivla (which have place structures and all) to the mix without at
least flagging them with a classifier rafsi.  So to me, {gugdrturki,e} or
{kulnrturki,e} is just fine, as appropriate (or {jectrturki,e}, etc).  If
you don't like the comma, fine, use the diphthong, whatever.  If you need
lujvo from those (which is stretching it; tanru should do in most cases)
there's always {zei}.  In fact, a fair amount of the time you can even make
do with just the cmene and {zei}.  So to me, even a correct and well-chosen
Stage 4 fu'ivla is still not something I'd want to see.

>Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at
>first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as
>French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid
>allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other
>languages, but this often happens when learning another language.

Still, even Turks are used to seeing "Turkey" (or "Turk*") in just about
every other Latin-alphabet orthography.  That can't be a coincidence; /y/
is close to /i/ in other languages as well.  Between that and the
metathesis (ok, is the accent on the second of third syllable in that
word??) of the /r/, the word is pretty hard to recognize.  Particularly
dangerous in a word not canonized in "official" lists.

>The last letter could be either "i" or "e"; I chose "i" because then it
>matches the other vowels and creates a sort of a vowel harmony
>(though not in the Turkish sense, I realize). In any event, it doesn't
>really matter since rafsi fu'ivla aren't supposed to differ only in the
>last letter.

Fair enough, but note that {o} is the traditional ending for cultural
brivla in Lojban.

~mark


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      2. lisri xigai
           From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Lojban Webring
           From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxx>
      4. Re: lujvo for "forgive"?
           From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx
      5. Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?
           From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:34:51 PDT
   From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: re: cecla fanta flalu


la adam cusku di'e

>do sruma le du'u le nu da ponse lo xacyce'a cu nibli le nu le ni
>snura cu jdika .i to'ebo la'e ri drani .i lo'e xacyce'a ponse ka'e
>sezyjaxybandu tu'a loi zergau .i ei ro prenu cu zifre le nu
>sezyjaxybandu .ije go'i sepi'o lo xacyce'a va'o le nu ri sarcu

i ku'i lo'e xacyce'a cu vlipa le nu gunta kei gi'e ruble le nu bandu
i le nu da ponse xy cu ckape so'i de gi'enai mutce sidju da
le nu bandu iseki'ubo le ni snura ca'a jdika

>.i ji'a le
>nu xacyce'a ponse cu sarcu le nu bandu le nu zifre ku tu'a loi
>zergau po'onai eji'a tu'a le jecta .i le nu xacyce'a ponse cecmu cu
>nibli le nu zifre cecmu

i mi se cfipu i pau do stidi le nu le cecmu ji le cmima be le cecmu
cu ei zifre le nu ponse xy i su'o jecta cu jitro loi ratni nejni xarci
i seki'ubo ro prenu cu eipei zifre le nu ponse lo ratnenxa'i
i pe'i na racli i lo'e xacyce'a cu ruble le nu bandu tu'a loi zergau
kei gi'e bletce le nu bandu tu'a le jecta

>ni'o to zo jax na se vasru le rafste .i mi jinvi le du'u zo jax rafsi zo
>jai .i xu ri drani toi

i pe'i zo jaz ji'a pu se pilno

co'o mi'e xorxes


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:52:23 PDT
   From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: lisri xigai


to .a'i toi .i le tsani ba'o cnino skari binxo (The sky has
turned new colors.) .i krefu le ckafybarja (The coffeehouse
again.) .i le donri poi mlilenku joi grusi ku'o rinka lenu mi'a
menxagji le ckafi .e le zu'o tavla (Cool, gray days make
us want coffee & talk.) .i ko'a dasni le clani je ri'obla skaci
.e le xunrai tebycinta (Djuna is wearing a long turquoise
dress & her reddest lipstick.) .i mi dasni le xekri kosta noi
vo'a cpacu ke'a tu'a la na,lenz. (I'm wearing a black coat
i bought in New Orleans;) .i ky. renvi fi panono nanca (it's
a hundred years old.) .i ko'a pinxe le fomladru ckafi pe secau
leka sutra (She drinks a decaf latte.) .i mi pinxe le tcati poi
vrusi lo danmo (I drink a smoky flavored tea.) ni'o mi'a rinsa
ko'axire goi le ze'u pendo be mi'a be'o peme'e la fange (We
greet our old friend The Stranger) .i ri cusku le preti be lemi'a
puzi zu'o zukte (who asks us what we've been up to.) .i
ko'a bacru lu le bartu nunsla neka'a su'o ponse be lo
megrupnu li'u (Djuna says, "A Garden Party for millionaires.")
.i mi bacru lu mi'a casnu le nu'o se zukte befi lenu fanta lenu
lo nuzyski zu'o mabla zunti le lanzu po'u le puzi vlile se catra
li'u (I say, "We talked about what could be done to stop the
Media from harassing the families of victims.") .i di'u
nalkufygau ko'a (This makes Djuna uncomfortable.) .i bacru
lu jubme girzu le feimei .i gaimoi fa la mropra ku .uinai .u'u li'u
("At a table set for eleven," she says sadly, "the Twelfth
guest is Death.") .i mi bacru lu morji lebi'u nunsla (I say,
"I remember another party.) .i vi ri ku ko'exire goi pale vitke
ca'o skicu le ba'o nu vo'a ge catra ginai se sfasa (There,
a man was describing how he got away with murder.) .itu'e
tu'iki le xalbarja ku ko'exire noi renvi le xazdo jamna ku'o
puki se mlitepygau ko'ixire goi lebi'u barjypre (In a bar, this
veteran of the Vietnam War had been startled by another
customer.) .i dusysutra zukte ja'e lemu'e narpei pilno le
cecla (He acted too quickly with the result that without
thinking he used his gun.) .i morsi remna (Dead man.) .iku'i
babo le pulji ge klama gi cusku ledu'u vo'a ko'ixire ca'o
sisku mo'i lenu ri pu catra lebi'u pulji (But when the police
got there they told him the man he had killed was wanted
for shooting an officer.) .i le pulji cu gleki (They were glad
he was dead.)  .i seki'ubo milxe po'o sfasa (So they only
charged him) .i zekri fa lemu'e pilno lo cecla vi le tcadu
jimte tu'u (with discharging a firearm within the city limits.)
.i kiki di'u lisri ti'e li'u (This is the story as i heard it.") ni'o
ko'axire bacru lu lu puzu danfu ponse (The Stranger says,
"I used to have answers.) .i barda je cmalu jeji'a norbra
(Big answers & little answers & medium-size answers.) .i
na cabna li'u (Not anymore.") .i la djunas. bacru lu pau
gu'i prijymau gi sa'u ze'u makcu li'u (Djuna says, "Is that
being wiser or just middle-aged?")


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
   From: xod <xod@xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Lojban Webring

Join and surf the Lojban Webring!

http://decadezero.org/lojban_webring.html

John and lojbab - add lojban.org to the ring!

Arnt and Robin, your websites will be added to the ring as soon you add
the HTML fragments to your pages. Email me if you need more info.


-----
Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology,
Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking.

http://extropy.com/



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:32:24 +0400 (MSD)
   From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: lujvo for "forgive"?

mi spuda tu'a la mark. di'e:

> > .e'o ma? lujvo zoi glic. forgive glic.
> to zo .e'o ki'a toi

.i mi pilno zo .e'o lenu cpedu
.i ko karbi le jufra poi casnu ke'a ku goi ko'a
            zoi gic. lujvo for "forgive", please? gic.

ni'o
mi srera tu'a ko'a ri'a mi na pilno zo la'e

> .oiro'aroe .i ri'a ma paunai mi o'onaise'i na ganse zo fraxu

.i go'ira'o

co'o mi'e kir.

--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xx>



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:33:14 +0400 (MSD)
   From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Lojban word processor for Windows?

mi spuda tu'a la bruk. di'e:

> > Any of you programmers out there willing to try to come up
> > with a simple Lojban word-processor?

> Oddly enough I was thinking about just this problem this morning
> as I was walking to work.

.i go'ira'o ca le puzi jeftu

> Another approach, of course, is to write extensions for editors
> that support that kind of thing. Emacs comes to mind :-)

.i mi ta'e pilno la .emaks. na.e la vim.
.i to .e'o ko na censa zo'o jamna toi
.i .ai mi pu'o finti le co'e be la vim. lenu valsi klesi ke skari basna

co'o mi'e kir.

--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@xxx.xx>



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________


There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in today's digest:

      1. Re: re: cecla fanta flalu
           From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      2. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
      3. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
      4. order of time elements in date-time groups
           From: BestATN@xxx.xxx
      5. Re: order of time elements in date-time groups
           From: Paul Jarc <prj@xx.xxxx.xxxx
      6. Re: order of time elements in date-time groups
           From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
      7. Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
      8. Re: order of time elements in date-time groups
           From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:30:33 +0200
   From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: re: cecla fanta flalu

de'i li 29/09/99 ti'u li 8:34 la xorxes cusku di'e

>
> la adam cusku di'e
>
> >do sruma le du'u le nu da ponse lo xacyce'a cu nibli le nu le ni
> >snura cu jdika .i to'ebo la'e ri drani .i lo'e xacyce'a ponse ka'e
> >sezyjaxybandu tu'a loi zergau .i ei ro prenu cu zifre le nu
> >sezyjaxybandu .ije go'i sepi'o lo xacyce'a va'o le nu ri sarcu
>
> i ku'i lo'e xacyce'a cu vlipa le nu gunta kei gi'e ruble le nu bandu

.i ji'a lo dakfu cu ka'e se pilno fi le nu gunta .i ku'i so'u prenu cu
gunta sepi'o lo dakfu .ije le nu ponse lo dakfu na nalselfla

> i le nu da ponse xy cu ckape so'i de gi'enai mutce sidju da
> le nu bandu iseki'ubo le ni snura ca'a jdika
>

.i uecai ianai le nu xacyce'a ponse cu ruble le nu bandu .i lo'e
zergau na djica le nu damba .i djica le nu zergau gi'ebabo cliva
secau lo nabmi .i zy ganai jinvi le du'u penmi lo xacyce'a ponse gi
facki fi lo drata selxai .i so'a xacyce'a ponse na zergau .i loi zergau
cu ca'a ponse lo xacyce'a .iju la'e di'u se flalu

> >.i ji'a le
> >nu xacyce'a ponse cu sarcu le nu bandu le nu zifre ku tu'a loi
> >zergau po'onai eji'a tu'a le jecta .i le nu xacyce'a ponse cecmu cu
> >nibli le nu zifre cecmu
>
> i mi se cfipu i pau do stidi le nu le cecmu ji le cmima be le cecmu
> cu ei zifre le nu ponse xy

.i e .i ganai le cmima cu ponse cei broda lo xacyce'a gi le cecmu
cu broda .i le nu le cecmu cu broda cu se smuni le nu le cmima cu
broda .i le cecmu cu snura .ijo le cmima cu snura

> i su'o jecta cu jitro loi ratni nejni xarci
> i seki'ubo ro prenu cu eipei zifre le nu ponse lo ratnenxa'i
> i pe'i na racli i lo'e xacyce'a cu ruble le nu bandu tu'a loi zergau
> kei gi'e bletce le nu bandu tu'a le jecta

.i lo ratnejni xarci na sarcu le nu bandu fi tu'a le jecta  .i ganai da'i
loi xabju be la timor pe le stuna cu broda gi le bindo jenmi cu na
kakne le nu teptcegau je catra .i da'inai no jecta cu kakne le nu
jdikygau le ni zifre pe lo xacyce'a ponse cecmu

.i co'o mi'e adam
Adam Raizen
araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx
------------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                         --George Washington


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:30:33 +0200
   From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

la mark cusku di'e

> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxx>
>
> >From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:20 +0200
> >
> >From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> >
> >I would suggest "tri'iki". I realize that it doesn't look much like most
> >languages pronunciation or spelling of Turkey, but since it's of the
> >form CCVVCV, and so conforms to the rafsi fu'ivla proposal in
> >section 16 of chapter 4 of the href grammar, I think it works best.
>
> FWIW, I'm not at all sanguine about Stage 4 fu'ivla pretty much ever, at
> this point in the language (and possibly ever, period).  Lojban's tricky
> enough with lujvo and rafsi and contextually-defined cmene; I'd rather not
> add fu'ivla (which have place structures and all) to the mix without at
> least flagging them with a classifier rafsi.  So to me, {gugdrturki,e} or
> {kulnrturki,e} is just fine, as appropriate (or {jectrturki,e}, etc).  If
> you don't like the comma, fine, use the diphthong, whatever.  If you need
> lujvo from those (which is stretching it; tanru should do in most cases)
> there's always {zei}.  In fact, a fair amount of the time you can even make
> do with just the cmene and {zei}.  So to me, even a correct and well-chosen
> Stage 4 fu'ivla is still not something I'd want to see.
>

Maybe the average stage 4 fu'ivla isn't right for this stage of the
language, but I think that at least cultural fu'ivla could be added as
stage 4 fu'ivla, especially since there's a mechanism defined for
doing so. The place structure isn't a problem; for all such words it's
"x1 pertains to the culture in aspect x2."

> >Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at
> >first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as
> >French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid
> >allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other
> >languages, but this often happens when learning another language.
>
> Still, even Turks are used to seeing "Turkey" (or "Turk*") in just about
> every other Latin-alphabet orthography.  That can't be a coincidence; /y/
> is close to /i/ in other languages as well.

No, it's not a coincidence; they all copied the spelling and not the
pronunciation. It's up to Lojban to set the world straight zo'o.

> Between that and the
> metathesis (ok, is the accent on the second of third syllable in that
> word??) of the /r/, the word is pretty hard to recognize.  Particularly
> dangerous in a word not canonized in "official" lists.
>

Whenever you have a very rigid pattern like CCVVCV some words
are going to need to be forced a bit. This happened with the gismu
culture words too sometimes. How recognizable is "kisto" at first
glance?

Anyway, I don't think that we should let what "official" lists say hold
us up, otherwise we'd never get any new words. Maybe if you're
using a word like "tri'iki" which is likely not to be recognized it
should be explained at first, but if everyone's worried about whether
it's "official," it will never be used.

> >The last letter could be either "i" or "e"; I chose "i" because then it
> >matches the other vowels and creates a sort of a vowel harmony
> >(though not in the Turkish sense, I realize). In any event, it doesn't
> >really matter since rafsi fu'ivla aren't supposed to differ only in the
> >last letter.
>
> Fair enough, but note that {o} is the traditional ending for cultural
> brivla in Lojban.
>

Actually I think that -o is the ending for the gismu which weren't
made by the algorithm.

> ~mark


Adam Raizen
araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx
------------------------------------------------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                         --George Washington


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:04:09 -0700
   From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@xxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

Adam Raizen wrote:
> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@xxx.xxx>
> >From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> > >Using "i'i" as the two consonants may not be as recognizable at
> > >first glance as "u'u", but if the sound in Turkish is the same as
> > >French u (IPA [y]), it should definitely be i, since [y] is a valid
> > >allophone for the letter i. This may not look exactly like most other
> > >languages, but this often happens when learning another language.
> >
> > Still, even Turks are used to seeing "Turkey" (or "Turk*") in just
> > about every other Latin-alphabet orthography.  That can't be a
> > coincidence; /y/ is close to /i/ in other languages as well.
>
> No, it's not a coincidence; they all copied the spelling and not the
> pronunciation. It's up to Lojban to set the world straight zo'o.

What spelling did `they all' copy?  The Roman form _Trkiye_, which
didn't exist until 1921?  The Ottoman <turkIyeH>, which uses the same
diacritic for _u_ and __?  The spelling in Turkic runes, where the
letter __ has nothing in common with either _i_ or _u_?

(Btw, in Bulgarian and Russian, where Turkish __ is usually rendered
as _ju_, Turkey is called _Turcija_, and a distinction is made between
_tur(k)-_ `Turkish' and the more recent _tjurk-_ `Turkic'.)

The point is that the form /turk/ as an alternative of /tyrk/ (IPA)
in those languages where /y/ is not a separate phoneme is a good deal
older than any spelling that `they all' could have copied.  It may
have to do with the fact that in Arabic (and Semitic in general)
/u/ does have front(ed) allophones, while /i/ has no rounded ones.
In any case, it is a result of the objective conditions of the
relevant linguistic environment.  Should Lojban's arbitrary
conventions take precedence over that?

--
"mu' Dajatlhpa', reH DajatlhlaH,  <soxan tA nagoftI, tawAnI-^s goft,
'ach Dajatlhpu'DI', DughatlhlaH"   walI gofteH rA bAz natwAn nehoft>
            (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski                     <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@xxxx.xxx.xx>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:24:29 EDT
   From: BestATN@xxx.xxx
Subject: order of time elements in date-time groups

In a message dated 9/30/1999 10:11:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx writes:

>
>  de'i li 29/09/99 ti'u li 8:34 la xorxes cusku di'e
>


The order of the time elements in dates and times should be consistent, all
increasing in size or all decreasing.  Thus if a date is given as 29/09/99,
as in the above example, then the time after it should be given as 34:8.
Conversely, if the time is taken as the standard, then the date should be
99/09/29.

I prefer the latter order, because all our place-value number systems give
the largest elements first and decrease to the smallest.

My understanding is that Lojban gives the smallest unit first because it's
easier to leave off the others when they are unnecessary.  To me this is not
a compelling reason to be inconsistent, especially in a language which is
consistent to an extreme.

Steven Lytle


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:34:14 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Paul Jarc <prj@xx.xxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: order of time elements in date-time groups

BestATN@xxx.xxx writes:
> In a message dated 9/30/1999 10:11:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx writes:
> >  de'i li 29/09/99 ti'u li 8:34 la xorxes cusku di'e
>
> The order of the time elements in dates and times should be consistent, all
> increasing in size or all decreasing.  Thus if a date is given as 29/09/99,
> as in the above example, then the time after it should be given as 34:8.
> Conversely, if the time is taken as the standard, then the date should be
> 99/09/29.

The ISO standard format for dates and times is "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS".


co'o mi'e pol.


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 08:35:27 +0300
   From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: order of time elements in date-time groups

BestATN@xxx.xxx wrote:

> From: BestATN@xxx.xxx
>
> In a message dated 9/30/1999 10:11:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> araizen@xxxxxxx.xxx writes:
>
> >
> >  de'i li 29/09/99 ti'u li 8:34 la xorxes cusku di'e
> >
>
> The order of the time elements in dates and times should be consistent, all
> increasing in size or all decreasing.  Thus if a date is given as 29/09/99,
> as in the above example, then the time after it should be given as 34:8.
> Conversely, if the time is taken as the standard, then the date should be
> 99/09/29.
>
> I prefer the latter order, because all our place-value number systems give
> the largest elements first and decrease to the smallest.
>
> My understanding is that Lojban gives the smallest unit first because it's
> easier to leave off the others when they are unnecessary.  To me this is not
> a compelling reason to be inconsistent, especially in a language which is
> consistent to an extreme.
>

I don't think this is an inconsistency - it's consistent with the rule of "most
pertinent comes first."  In the time-of-day, the basic level concept (as
cognitive linguists like to call it) is the hour; above that, it's the day.
Subordinates and superordinates come later.  With dates, people often say "I'm
coming on the fifth," but less commonly "I'm coming on the fifth of July".  For
"I'm coming in July" we can use cmene.

co'o mi'e robin.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 04:20:47 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Turkey (Re: cecla fanta flalu)

At 06:04 PM 9/30/99 -0700, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote:
> > > Still, even Turks are used to seeing "Turkey" (or "Turk*") in just
> > > about every other Latin-alphabet orthography.  That can't be a
> > > coincidence; /y/ is close to /i/ in other languages as well.
> >
> > No, it's not a coincidence; they all copied the spelling and not the
> > pronunciation. It's up to Lojban to set the world straight zo'o.
>
>What spelling did `they all' copy?  The Roman form _Trkiye_, which
>didn't exist until 1921?  The Ottoman <turkIyeH>, which uses the same
>diacritic for _u_ and __?  The spelling in Turkic runes, where the
>letter __ has nothing in common with either _i_ or _u_?
>
>(Btw, in Bulgarian and Russian, where Turkish __ is usually rendered
>as _ju_, Turkey is called _Turcija_, and a distinction is made between
>_tur(k)-_ `Turkish' and the more recent _tjurk-_ `Turkic'.)
>
>The point is that the form /turk/ as an alternative of /tyrk/ (IPA)
>in those languages where /y/ is not a separate phoneme is a good deal
>older than any spelling that `they all' could have copied.  It may
>have to do with the fact that in Arabic (and Semitic in general)
>/u/ does have front(ed) allophones, while /i/ has no rounded ones.
>In any case, it is a result of the objective conditions of the
>relevant linguistic environment.  Should Lojban's arbitrary
>conventions take precedence over that?

Which arbitrary conventions are these?  The determining factor should be
what the people want themselves to be called.  There is precedent for
Lojban emulating either the pronunciation and the common spelling with
people going different ways on the matter.  Robin can ask his native wife
and perhaps some others whether they would prefer to be called la turk or
la tirk or la trk (adding a lojbanization of one of the endings as
appropriate - I gather that up through the k is the essential root)

lojbab



----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 04:32:07 -0400
   From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: order of time elements in date-time groups

At 09:24 PM 9/30/99 -0400, BestATN@xxx.xxx wrote:
> >  de'i li 29/09/99 ti'u li 8:34 la xorxes cusku di'e
>
>The order of the time elements in dates and times should be consistent, all
>increasing in size or all decreasing.  Thus if a date is given as 29/09/99,
>as in the above example, then the time after it should be given as 34:8.
>Conversely, if the time is taken as the standard, then the date should be
>99/09/29.
>
>I prefer the latter order, because all our place-value number systems give
>the largest elements first and decrease to the smallest.
>
>My understanding is that Lojban gives the smallest unit first because it's
>easier to leave off the others when they are unnecessary.  To me this is not
>a compelling reason to be inconsistent, especially in a language which is
>consistent to an extreme.

If Lojban were only a written language, that type of argument would be
fine.  But the conventions of spoken forms in most languages are to
ellipsize unneeded information whenever possible to save breath and
time.  Lojban's unambiguity requires that ellipsis be regularized, and that
regularization has been that trailing information is omitted.

To follow the ISO standard would condemn Lojbanists to having to state the
full year and month every time they want to give a date, and likewise the
time to the second whenever they want to give a time.  Imagine in English
having to say "I have a doctors appointment on One thousand Nine hundred
Ninety Nine, October first, at eleven hours and zero minutes and zero
seconds." vs. "I have an appointment on the first at eleven."

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@xxxxxx.xxx
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
   see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
   Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.



_______________________________________________________________________________
