From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Mar 1 13:16:48 2000 X-Digest-Num: 380 Message-ID: <44114.380.2121.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:16:48 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: Use and abuse of sets la lojbab cusku di'e >Not all masses are sums of like individuals. I agree. For example, {la lojbab joi la xorxes} is a mass of two unlike individuals. :) But really, {le manti joi le jubme} is also a mass. I never said masses were sums of like individuals. >And sometimes the individuals >do not have the mass properties. Of course. I never said they did. In fact, I argued that they didn't against someone at some point (maybe it wasn't you). >Your body is a mass of organs This is starting to get fuzzy. Are you talking about the lojban article "mass" or some other concept? Are you saying {loi rango cu xadni mi}? If so, I think I agree. >but the >members of la xorxes are not le rango, of course, because {la xorxes} is not {le xadni be la xorxes}. So what? >and in fact you as a mass have no >members per se What do you mean by me as a mass? >What are the members of lei djacu? They are {le djacu}. >Are they individual molecules? No, they are quantities of water. >But if >I pour 3 portions of water into a tub, I might well describe that as "lei >ci djacu", yet it would be impossible to delimit what each of le djacu were >that comprised the mass. Who denies that? They were identifiable before you poured them, and then they were no longer identifiable. What is the problem? >No, what makes a mass is the loss of individual identity of any >identifiable components the moment that you start talking of their mass >properties. Obviously we disagree. >Or shall we say that any possible manifestation of the mass >properties is a putative member. I wouldn't say that. >I would contend that there is no "current state of Loglan". I would contend you're being a bit unfair with TLI Loglan. I can't think of any reason why... :) L3 is a pretty good description of the language, at least of some parts, and it was published with JCB's approval. > > They don't have our "lo", > >and they use "ne" where we use "lo". That is all I am > >saying. > >It is not clear that this is a one to one correspondence (i.e. they may not >always use "ne" when we use "lo" and vice versa) I'm sure you're right, as will happen between any two languages. My point still stands, they don't have anything equivalent to our {lo}. > >Was it well-defined or impossibly contradictory? > >Yes. Both. We have a different understanding of "well-defined" then. > >Why make things complicated when there is no need? > >What is needed in everyday speech may be different from what is needed in >specific contexts. I agree that vocabulary will vary, but I don't think the grammar should. > >One way to start to know is to look at what speakers of > >the logical language Lojban are using and not using. > >Nick isn't saying much these days, and we have no others. That is a little insulting to the people who use Lojban in jbosnu@onelist.com (the list for discussion in Lojban) as well as to those who write in Lojban from time to time in this list. >(i.e. the point >is that there is way too little usage to determine usefulness based on what >is actually used, especially when talking about things that are intended >for use in niche contexts). I agree we cannot determine anything yet. I only suggested looking for trends, and I was also giving my personal impressions derived from my use experience. > >And the proposed Lojban way of reading mathematical expressions > >is hoplessly inadequate for mathematicians and hoplessly > >complicated for everyday use. > >How do we know? That it won't be enough for mathematicians can be known by looking at any mathematical journal and trying to read the more complicated formulas in Lojban. That it is complicated for everyday use I know from trying to learn it and comparing it with the ordinary Lojban grammar. > >My point is that the parts of the grammar that are not used > >in everyday conversation don't really belong in the language. > >None of Lojban is used in everyday conversation. Yes it is. For example in jbosnu. You were also present when it was used during Logfest. > > What language > >has a specialized grammar for technical fields? > >Mathematics. Computer languages that make use of natlang keywords (e.g. >COBOL and the various restricted domain human-computer interfaces)) I meant human language, like Lojban. I don't mind if someone decides to use Lojban keywords for a computer language. I just don't want to incorporate that computer language as part of the Lojban grammar. > Air >traffic control. They use a different grammar? >Probably a lot of others because there is little study of >the specialization of language within a restricted discipline other than a >focus on the jargon. Maybe you're right. I still think it is odd that to fully know the grammar of Lojban you have to learn how to use a huge number of selmaho that practically never come up in real usage. >I don't think I have seen "o" other than in "onai". Maybe once or twice, >but Nick wrote some MEX once, too. Even if "o" had never been used, it is just vocabulary. That doesn't mean that the selmaho is useless. In the case of MEX I am arguing against the grammar, not the vocabulary. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com