Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 00:11:40 -0800 (PST)
From: sukender1@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <6f364851-f9ad-431c-8f71-384e606fae93@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACf3dPnmCuGXQtxQOOrP9T9pDthhthx3rnoCdaFoai+fM8M6Wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com>
 <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> <SY3PR01MB0873C992D556B090F308980EEB510@SY3PR01MB0873.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CACf3dPnmCuGXQtxQOOrP9T9pDthhthx3rnoCdaFoai+fM8M6Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1325_1535218885.1510128700145"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -4.1
X-Spam_score_int: -40
X-Spam_bar: ----

------=_Part_1325_1535218885.1510128700145
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1326_1326075769.1510128700146"

------=_Part_1326_1326075769.1510128700146
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@And Rosta : Are there many people thinking *strict* logic is more=20
important than usability?? I mean, it's okay to me to try getting a=20
language *based* on logic, and try to keep it "the most logical as=20
possible". But language itself is not a fully formal, consistent and=20
complete (as you and Gleki said recently, and as even CLL says), so why the=
=20
hell try to be strict on logic when those areas of interest are not strict?=
=20
As far as I understand from the history & documentation, even the start=20
idea behind the LOGICAL language was not to make it *FULLY *logical, but *B=
ASED=20
*on logic. Am I right?

la .sykyndyr.


Le mardi 7 novembre 2017 16:35:26 UTC+1, And Rosta a =C3=A9crit :
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 13:49, Timothy Lawrence <
> timothy....@connect.qut.edu.au <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> *"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will=
=20
>> not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."*
>> - Complete Lojban Language http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/=20
>>
>> I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to=
=20
>> have a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.
>>
>
> We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not=
=20
> internally consistent, is not complete, and especially cannot be complete=
d=20
> in a coherent way that is consistent with CLL. To the best of my knowledg=
e,=20
> nobody who understands and cares about logic and consistency has ever=20
> maintained that CLL Lojban is viable. However, there are people who hold=
=20
> that fidelity to CLL -- and to a standard dialect that emerges=20
> spontaneously from CLL-faithful usage -- is of paramount importance,=20
> outweighing considerations of logic and consistency. The community has=20
> always been polarized between these two positions; all that has changed i=
s=20
> that the former group has grown at the expense of the latter, as the=20
> requisite understanding of the logical issues has spread.
>
> --And.
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_1326_1326075769.1510128700146
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">@And Rosta : Are there many people thinking <u>strict</u> =
logic is more important than usability?? I mean, it&#39;s okay to me to try=
 getting a language <u>based</u> on logic, and try to keep it &quot;the mos=
t logical as possible&quot;. But language itself is not a=C2=A0fully formal=
, consistent and complete (as you and Gleki said recently, and as even CLL =
says), so why the hell try to be strict on logic when those areas of intere=
st are not strict? As far as I understand from the history &amp; documentat=
ion, even the start idea behind the LOGICAL language was not to make it <b>=
FULLY </b>logical, but <b>BASED </b>on logic. Am I right?<div><br></div><di=
v>la .sykyndyr.<br><div><br><br>Le mardi 7 novembre 2017 16:35:26 UTC+1, An=
d Rosta a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 7 November 2017 at 13:49, =
Timothy Lawrence <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_b=
lank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"yxi7U2pcCgAJ" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=
=3D"this.href=3D&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D=
&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true;">timothy....@connect.qut.<wbr>edu.au</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sa=
ns-serif" dir=3D"ltr">
<div><i>&quot;You can learn the language described here with assurance that=
 it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters.&quot;</i>=
<br>
- Complete Lojban Language <a href=3D"http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/" tar=
get=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.=
google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%2Flojban.github.io%2Fcll%2F1%2F2%2F\x26sa\x3=
dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNG2h9GHw8DBpIpiUFxJt2jIr8e2tw&#39;;return tr=
ue;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttp%3A%2F%=
2Flojban.github.io%2Fcll%2F1%2F2%2F\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjC=
NG2h9GHw8DBpIpiUFxJt2jIr8e2tw&#39;;return true;">
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/<wbr>2/</a> <br>
<br>
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have=
 a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.<br></div></div></div></bl=
ockquote><div><br></div><div>We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logi=
cally unambiguous, is not internally consistent, is not complete, and espec=
ially cannot be completed in a coherent way that is consistent with CLL. To=
 the best of my knowledge, nobody who understands and cares about logic and=
 consistency has ever maintained that CLL Lojban is viable. However, there =
are people who hold that fidelity to CLL -- and to a standard dialect that =
emerges spontaneously from CLL-faithful usage -- is of paramount importance=
, outweighing considerations of logic and consistency. The community has al=
ways been polarized between these two positions; all that has changed is th=
at the former group has grown at the expense of the latter, as the requisit=
e understanding of the logical issues has spread.</div><div><br></div><div>=
--And.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1326_1326075769.1510128700146--

------=_Part_1325_1535218885.1510128700145--