From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Feb 21 12:02:51 1999 X-Digest-Num: 69 Message-ID: <44114.69.362.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:02:51 +0200 From: Robin Turner la lindjy,min cusku di'e > > >Since Lojban is firstly defined to > >test the Sapir-Wholf theory, let's assume it be true first. Since Lojban is > >based in predicate logic, it derives all limitation and implicities of it; > >thus Lojbanists' way of thinking are limited by the logic. > > I disagree with that. There is nothing in Lojban that limits you to > logical thinking. Just because something is called a logical language > doesn't mean that it is a logical language. I don't think Lojban is more > nor less logical than English, Chinese, or any other language, unless > by "logical" we mean something like regular, with a rational spelling, > or things like that, that don't really have to do with logic. Languages > in themselves are not logical or illogical. Only what you say in the > language can be called logical or illogical, and in Lojban you can > make illogical statements with equal ease as in any other language, > and they're perfectly grammatical. > Perhaps Lojban makes it easier to identify illogicality. In particular, sorting out attitudinals and discourse markers from propositions and logical connectors might help, as might the varied vocabulary for causation. I'm not sure - it's just an idea. And there are those useful cmavo, {k'ia} and {ni'ima} ;-) > > Taking Robin's example, in Lojban you can say: > > ro relselse'u bakni cu citka lo srasu > Every two-headed cow eats grass. > > and there is absolutely nothing in the language that tells you that the > statement is true, or false, or true-and-false-and-meaningless. You > can choose by yourself what truth value, if any, you want to give it. > So I don't understand why people say that Lojban can in any way > limit Lojbanist's way of thinking or expressing themselves. > {pe'i} it expands, rather than limits. co'o mi'e robin.