Hacking Lojban

Those familiar with Godel's incompleteness theorems would recall that certain formal systems that are sufficiently complex contain paradoxes. Two particular paradoxes are of concern, namely:

1. Such systems that are complete are also inconsistent (Godel's first theorem)


2. Such systems that are consistent cannot be complete as such a system cannot prove its own consistency (Godel's second theorem).

Predicate logic, how pretty delicate thou art

Natural language is not a formal system. Partially due to this reason, ambiguities arise which renders natural language somewhat inadequate for formal expression, but rather appropriate for planting memes in the impressionable. Ask Roman Polanski.

In an attempt to rid ourselves of the ambiguities of language, projects arose to establish language based on the principles of first order logic. That is, these projects aimed at formalising natural language by injecting a set of formal rules into a mixture of natural languages. Two of these projects are:

1. Loglan, which is one of the first of its kind and copyrighted.


2. Lojban, which is similar to the open source nemesis of Loglan because what good is a language if you can't speak it with anyone?

In my previous post on nerd bands, I lamented the fact that I couldn't find any bands who sang in Lojban. I went through a few Lojban lessons and noticed the following:

Lojban nouns

In Lojban, there is a class of word called cmene. Cmene is the Lojban term for name. This is similar to the existential quantifier in predicate logic. In other words, without the jargon or the batty symbols:

There exists one something with one particular name. The name for this name is cmene

All cmene follow the format of CCVCV, or five letters consisting of Consonant Consonant Vowel Consonant Vowel. Even cmene, so that's pretty sweet as this barber shaves himself.

Edit: this is incorrect. All gismu (root words) follow the format of CCVCV or CCVCV. Cmene is the gismu that refers to proper nouns in Lojban. All cmene that are first names are preceded by a full-stop if they start with a vowel and end in a consonant.

Lojban verbs, or what functions as verbs

Words that function as verbs in Lojban are called selbri. In the lesson on selbri, the authors explain that a selbri and a verb are not the same thing, as a selbri merely functions like a verb does. A selbri is usually a root word from a class called gismu. Gismu is a type of word that indicates a root word in a similar way that verbs have roots, though a gismu is not necessarily a selbri, or vica versa.

All gismu have one of two forms: CVCCV or CCVCV. This means that all cmene are gismu, or that all names are root words. Right?

Edit: Since I was mistaken and cmene do not have the form of CVCCV or CCVCV if they are first names, all cmene are not gismu.

What is the hax?

Cmene (name) is a gismu (root word) because cmene is a root word that indicates a name for a group of words that indicates names.

Gismu (root word) is the cmene (name) for root words in Lojban. It has the form CVCCV. Yet all cmene are meant to have the form CCVCV. This barber does not shave himself. Maybe it's a bit of a long shot as all cmene are gismu but all gismu don't have to be cmene? Fine.

Edit: I was wrong here so the above hacks does not apply.

Selbri (connective that acts like a verb) is the cmene (name) that refers to a group of words that function like verbs in Lojban. Thus, selbri is a cmene that has more than five letters. Selbri also breaks the rule that all cmene have the format CCVCV, as it has the format CVCCCV. This barber does not shave himself either. Hello, Russel's paradox.

Edit: Selbri is not a cmene in the first name sense, but a cmene for connectives that act like verbs. This means the only cmene rule for selbri is that it has to end on a vowel, which it does.

Is Katie the cmene of Katie Price or Katherine Jenkins?

Well, this is not so much a paradox as a set on its own. A couple of nice sets within the set, though.


Katie Price Jordan. I wish she'd make up her mind about her cmene.



Katherine Jenkins. Too classy for this blog.

I can just imagine the kind of selbri you have in mind for these two ladies, but please let me imagine it's an empty set, thank you.

Is DNA analogous to human language?

"It all starts with random mutation, from which natural selection can choose winners. Since DNA is a language based on a four-letter alphabet (A, C, T, G); since letters form words (Codons) and words form instructions (Genes) we can test the concept in Plain English."
Mr Perry Marshall


This post forms part of a series on Mr Marshall's Random Mutator. You can find all the posts here:

1. The Random Mutator of Perry Marshall.


2. Is DNA Analogous to Human Language?


3. How Random is Random Mutation in DNA?


4. Does Darwinian Evolution Claim that DNA Mutations are Random?

The analogy that DNA is a language like Plain English is just a metaphor. It's a very convenient metaphor to explain the mechanisms of DNA, but as a metaphor, it should not be taken too literally. Operations on a string of text in English do not represent operations on DNA. Here is why:

DNA is a language based on a four letter alphabet (A, C, T, G)

This seems pretty valid and it does clarify the workings of DNA a little. However, letters in Plain English do not work like this:

"Each nucleotide sub-unit consists of a phosphate, deoxyribose sugar and one of the 4 nitrogenous nucleotide bases. The purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G) are larger and consist of two aromatic rings. The pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine (T) are smaller and consist of only one aromatic ring.

In the double-helix configuration, two strands of DNA are joined to each other by hydrogen bonds in an arrangement known as base pairing. These bonds almost always form between an adenine base on one strand and a thymine on the other strand and between a cytosine base on one strand and a guanine base on the other."
[Transfer of information via the genetic code, Wikipedia]

The letters A, C, T and G represent nucleotides. While these letters are the basic building blocks of DNA, just like letters are the basic building blocks of words, nucleotides are further divisible into more basic building blocks.


A nucleotide is composed of a ring of nitrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms, a five carbon sugar (together referred to as a nucleoside) and one phosphate group.
[Nucleotide, Wikipedia]

While you could argue that letters are formed by ascenders, descenders, markers and serifs, these do not represent the basic building blocks of letters in the same way that a ring of nitrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms, a five carbon sugar and one phosphate group represent the basic building blocks of nucleotides.


The Gypsy Curse font from sinisterfonts.com. Does it look like nucleotides? Didn't think so.

Letters are not further divisible into functional parts in Plain English, but the nucleotides which make up DNA are further divisible into functional, stand-alone, chemical parts.

Furthermore, in any language there are rules which stipulate which letters can go next to which other letters. You'd mostly have a vowel next to a consonant, for instance.These rules are not determined by the message encoded in the text, but have to do with the conventions of the language.

This is different from DNA because DNA is not a language. DNA mostly forms as two strands: an adenine base on one strand and a thymine on the other strand and between a cytosine base on one strand and a guanine base on the other. This arrangement is not determined by convention, nor by the genetic code contained in the DNA, but the chemical properties of nucleotides and the resulting Hydrogen bonds.

Random mutations on a single string of Plain English text do not take the double helix structure of DNA into account.

This means the claim that we can test DNA concepts with Plain English is fundamentally flawed. The analogy that DNA is similar to Plain English is entirely inappropriate, as random operations on an entire string of text do not equate to any kind of operations on DNA at all.