From: Gleki Ar= xokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:Trivale= nt Logics

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:49:49 PM UTC+4= , clifford wrote:

=
I'm not sure what the Aymara population is, but linguists -- including= a number of native speakers of Aymara who have gone on to graduate degrees= in linguistics -- agree that Guzman's interpretation of the data (much of = which they say he also has wrong) is incorrect. In short, Aymara does= not use trivalent logic, though it does have a number of --to us -- unfami= liar epistemic modalities.

= If so the task to implement trivalent logic is no longer of utter importanc= e for me. I thought that the inventors of Aymara were much wiser.

uinai they were not.

ta'o Why implementing this logic= won't solve any problems? What can solve them? Quaternary logic? Do you have any thoughts of how to implement it?

Sent from my iPad

On = Aug 5, 2012, at 3:20 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, August 4, 2= 012 8:48:08 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:
Yea= h, with the unlikely exception of Aymara, it is hard to imagine what this w= ould look like in practice.
Why n= ot? Millions of people use it while speaking the language that is highly naturalistic.<= /div>
Just relexing Aymara to Lojban should be quite easy. It's all the= matter of how to teach people to use new but better cmavo.
= ;
Juggling even the six basi= cs xorxes offers (or the minimal three) probably pushes one's understanding= pretty far, unless you have a very concrete notion of what the third value= is (and then you may be surprised at what the system offers you in some ca= ses). We seem to be better with fuzzy (but let's don't get started on= that!) than clear-cut triads or more when it comes to dealing with the wor= ld.

=
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai= l.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:Trivalent = Logics

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
<gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
> doi xorxes x= u do pu troci lo nu pilno lo cimei logji xusycmuma'o ca'o lo nu
> tav= la?

.i no roi go'i

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You receive= d this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" gro= up.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@goo= glegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+= unsubscribe@googlegroup s.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.= google.com/group /lojban?hl=3Den.

--
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/lojban/-/BrVEgpdpPDE= J.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@ googlegroups= .com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.

--
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/lojban/-/kp2wqSHdxZsJ.
=20 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.