Received: from mail-vb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:36419)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOO27LuODBCxrqaABRoE7uLFHw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SsH8J-0000xo-Ky; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:37:03 -0700
Received: by vbzb23 with SMTP id b23sf4644597vbz.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=iCP9LvU0Gg29ekuoPws5ju5m/wvVaeFo0RUh49ywV3w=;
        b=YQ8wQVxsCbn+f8nIx8kby7YXqi1/qDyv9eNdqcY5+woEB727spDuMl/2odsYLdp3F0
         Y2PzW+cnIlfSwjQFaQgL1Kv4W9zs+Xrmezyu+uNGP0vJWx0ee+j/rU2Qmak8L5ZFnPVh
         nlGYykru8ClVduf14Nzdf6fW2N2nmOwHofgio=
Received: by 10.52.20.51 with SMTP id k19mr866572vde.8.1342805809070;
        Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.66.242 with SMTP id i18ls2246643vdt.5.gmail; Fri, 20 Jul
 2012 10:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.97.102 with SMTP id dz6mr858370vdb.2.1342805808508;
        Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: iesk <pa.fae@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <31163598-1f17-4f56-99b8-eefe5444d648@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc1fd25d-a1ca-41fa-8cdf-a9317d8f83b9@googlegroups.com>
References: <fc1fd25d-a1ca-41fa-8cdf-a9317d8f83b9@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: May Lojban be considered as an ideal language philosophy?
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: pa.fae@gmx.de
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 pa.fae@gmx.de designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=pa.fae@gmx.de; dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmx.de
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_40_12750723.1342805808112"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_40_12750723.1342805808112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wittgenstein continues in 3.325 that Begriffsschrift comes close to being=
=20
such a language. That seems to indicate that he has in mind not necessarily=
=20
a speakable language but a notational convention to write down logical=20
formulae. You can do that in Begriffsschrift, and you can do that in modern=
=20
notational conventions. But you can also verbalise logical formulae,=20
arguably somewhat easier in (a subset* of) Lojban than in (twisted)=20
English/German/Esperanto/whatever.

The passage you quote from refers to the kind of superficial ambiguities of=
=20
the kind that Lojban grammar seems to eradicate, in contrast to=20
English/German/Esperanto/whatever grammar.

* I say 'subset of Lojban' because, even though Lojban's 'unambiguity=20
features' should prevent the kind of confusion between <scare=20
quote>underlying logical structures</scare quote> of spoken sentences that=
=20
your TLP quotation mentions, Lojban allows you to underspecify the <scare=
=20
quote>underlying logical structure</scare quote> of your sentence (tanru=20
and {pe} and friends come to mind).

I don't know if it would be helpful to call a Begriffsschrift kind of=20
language 'ideal'. The Tractatus presupposes quite a lot of logical voodoo,=
=20
what with 'logische Gegenst=E4nde' and 'Der Gegenstand ist einfach' (2.02)=
=20
and the whole 'Bildtheorie' (sorry I don't have a translation at hand). I=
=20
guess an 'ideal' language in a Tractatus context would be one the symbols=
=20
of which correspond to the 'einfache Gegenst=E4nde', and I'm not sure if=20
Wittgenstein thought that Begriffsschrift etc. live up to that.

The later Wittgenstein would perhaps like the fact that 'prane' has an x2,=
=20
and would not care if Lojban is an ideal language or not. ;)

iesk

Le jeudi 19 juillet 2012 18:43:46 UTC+2, enc a =E9crit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I suppose Lojban is a very suitable language to do philosophy in a formal=
=20
> way, or mathematics. But I am wondering if Lojban can be a ideal language=
,=20
> perfectly logic and representative of the facts of the reality described =
by=20
> the early Wittgenstein.
>
> He wrote (*Tractatus*):
>
> 3.323 -- *In the language of everyday life it very often happens that the=
=20
> same word signifies in two different ways -- and therefore belongs to two=
=20
> different symbols -- or that two words, which signify in different ways,=
=20
> are apparently applied in the same way in the proposition.*
>
> *Thus the word "is" appears as the copula, as the sign of equality, and=
=20
> as the expression of existence; "to exist" as an intransitive verb like "=
to=20
> go"; "identical" as an adjective; we speak of something but also of the=
=20
> fact of something happening.*
> 3.325 -- *In order to avoid these errors, we must employ a symbolism=20
> which exlucdes them, by not applying the same sign in different symbols a=
nd=20
> by not applying signs in the same way which signify in different ways. A=
=20
> symbolism, that is to say, which obeys the rules of logical grammar -- of=
=20
> logical syntax.*
>
> *
> *
>
> Can Lojban really resolve all problems figured in 3.323? Can Lojban be=20
> this symbolism *which obeys the rules of logical grammar -- of logical=20
> syntax*?
>
> If so, maybe we can suppose that we can map each Lojban proposition to a=
=20
> fact, and that there exists an correspondence between Lojban language and=
=20
> reality.
>
> Regards.
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lo=
jban/-/zrvuxpyjiGMJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.


------=_Part_40_12750723.1342805808112
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wittgenstein continues in 3.325 that Begriffsschrift comes close to being s=
uch a language. That seems to indicate that he has in mind not necessarily =
a speakable language but a notational convention to write down logical form=
ulae. You can do that in Begriffsschrift, and you can do that in modern not=
ational conventions. But you can also verbalise logical formulae, arguably =
somewhat easier in (a subset* of) Lojban than in (twisted) English/German/E=
speranto/whatever.<br><br>The passage you quote from refers to the kind of =
superficial ambiguities of the kind that Lojban grammar seems to eradicate,=
 in contrast to English/German/Esperanto/whatever grammar.<br><br>* I say '=
subset of Lojban' because, even though Lojban's 'unambiguity features' shou=
ld prevent the kind of confusion between &lt;scare quote&gt;underlying logi=
cal structures&lt;/scare quote&gt; of spoken sentences that your TLP quotat=
ion mentions, Lojban allows you to underspecify the &lt;scare quote&gt;unde=
rlying logical structure&lt;/scare quote&gt; of your sentence (tanru and {p=
e} and friends come to mind).<br><br>I don't know if it would be helpful to=
 call a Begriffsschrift kind of language 'ideal'. The Tractatus presupposes=
 quite a lot of logical voodoo, what with 'logische Gegenst=E4nde' and 'Der=
 Gegenstand ist einfach' (2.02) and the whole 'Bildtheorie' (sorry I don't =
have a translation at hand). I guess an 'ideal' language in a Tractatus con=
text would be one the symbols of which correspond to the 'einfache Gegenst=
=E4nde', and I'm not sure if Wittgenstein thought that Begriffsschrift etc.=
 live up to that.<br><br>The later Wittgenstein would perhaps like the fact=
 that 'prane' has an x2, and would not care if Lojban is an ideal language =
or not. ;)<br><br>iesk<br><br>Le jeudi 19 juillet 2012 18:43:46 UTC+2, enc =
a =E9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin=
-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Hello,</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>I suppose Lojban is a very suitable language to do p=
hilosophy in a formal way, or mathematics. But I am wondering if Lojban can=
 be a ideal language, perfectly logic and representative of the facts of th=
e reality described by the early Wittgenstein.</div><div><br></div><div>He =
wrote (<i>Tractatus</i>):</div><div><br></div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>3.323&nbsp;--&nbsp;<span style=3D"c=
olor:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif" size=3D"2"><i>In the lang=
uage of everyday life it very often happens that the same word signifies in=
 two different ways -- and therefore belongs to two different symbols -- or=
 that two words, which signify in different ways, are apparently applied in=
 the same way in the proposition.</i></font></span></div><div><span style=
=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:large"><p><i><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif=
">Thus the word "is" appears as the copula, as the sign of equality, and as=
 the expression of existence; "to exist" as an intransitive verb like "to g=
o"; "identical" as an adjective; we speak of&nbsp;something&nbsp;but also o=
f the fact of&nbsp;something&nbsp;happening.</font></i></p></span></div><di=
v>3.325 --&nbsp;<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face=3D"arial, sans-=
serif" size=3D"2"><i>In order to avoid these errors, we must employ a symbo=
lism which exlucdes them, by not applying the same sign in different symbol=
s and by not applying signs in the same way which signify in different ways=
. A symbolism, that is to say, which obeys the rules of&nbsp;logical&nbsp;g=
rammar -- of logical syntax.</i></font></span></div></blockquote><div><font=
 color=3D"#000000" face=3D"arial, sans-serif" size=3D"2"><i><br></i></font>=
<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif" size=3D"2=
"><p style=3D"font-style:italic"></p><p>Can Lojban really resolve all probl=
ems figured in 3.323? Can Lojban be this symbolism&nbsp;<i style=3D"font-si=
ze:small">which obeys the rules of&nbsp;logical&nbsp;grammar -- of logical =
syntax</i><span style=3D"font-size:small">?</span></p><p><span style=3D"fon=
t-size:small">If so, maybe we can suppose that we can map each Lojban propo=
sition to a fact, and that there exists an correspondence between Lojban la=
nguage and reality.</span></p><p><span style=3D"font-size:small">Regards.</=
span></p></font></span></div></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/zrvuxpyjiGMJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zr=
vuxpyjiGMJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_40_12750723.1342805808112--