Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 74.6.131.125 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.6.131.125;
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 01:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
To: <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <864278277.359141.1510451894891@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <98db3894-350a-4361-84eb-d9033e0af862@googlegroups.com>
References: <ef141db1-9811-4d44-8458-972ddffdd883@googlegroups.com> <38c97c6d-7f22-48da-a55e-c748fbdb830f@googlegroups.com> <c7a816b1-df34-4520-be73-6401e077ecf6@googlegroups.com> <335313038.174144.1510412237273@mail.yahoo.com> <98db3894-350a-4361-84eb-d9033e0af862@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_359140_1651559543.1510451894888"
Content-Length: 17631
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_359140_1651559543.1510451894888
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 For a more thorough (though slightly out-of-date) version of all this, see=
 The role of Error in the History of Loglans (in 8 parts or so) at pkipo.bl=
ogspot.com.
1. =C2=A0What was the initial screw-up? =C2=A0FOPL (or HOIL or whatever sys=
tem you choose) depends upon a clear demarcation of different syntactic typ=
es (and the corresponding different semantics). =C2=A0JCB, from the beginni=
ng, scrambled these types: quantifiers (sentence-makers with one variable a=
nd one sentence) are terms, conjunctions (sentence-makers with two sentence=
s) are term-makers, modals, tenses and negation (sentence-makers with one s=
entence) are predicate makers and so on. =C2=A0How is teh structure that al=
lows a logical system to work to be found in all that muddle? =C2=A0To be s=
ure, in the interest of speakablity, some such changes will have to come ab=
out, but they are at the end of a process of derivation, not at the beginni=
ng. =C2=A0Most of the 60 year Logjam construction process has been rying to=
 patch up this gap -- and there is no evidence that it has succeeded -- or =
is even going in the right direction. =C2=A0Monoparsing, yes (pretty much),=
 but not evidence of correct monoparsing.
2. People who talk about SAE languages tend to forget what that term means =
in Sapir and Whorf. =C2=A0The characteristic of SAE languages is summed up =
in literal surface reading of S: NP + VP. =C2=A0 The language consists of n=
ames of things embedded in a matrix words for properties and relations and =
actions. =C2=A0This contrasts with the=E2=80=9Dpurer=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cprim=
itive=E2=80=9D language where sentences are just long complex verbs. =C2=A0=
S n W circularly inferred that SAE speakers view the world (have a metaphys=
ics) =C2=A0of isolated things and their properties, relations, and activiti=
es, while the Hopi or Menominee or whatever view the world as made up of pr=
ocesses (what verbs refer to). =C2=A0Logjam, in its various forms, is clear=
ly of the former sort, terms and predicates. =C2=A0The fact that every aspe=
ct of this distinction is simple hogwash doesn=E2=80=99t matter much, excep=
t that it does mean the Logjam was, from day one, useless for testing SWH a=
nd was (in SnW=E2=80=99s terms) not culturally neutral.
3. =C2=A0To be sure, the logical traditions of India and China did not deve=
lop a set of extralinguistic symbols to deal with their notions. =C2=A0Howe=
ver, they did use a rigorously controlled (oh, m,y how hard to get the rule=
s right!) stylized version of the basic language (Sanskrit or Chinese or Ti=
betan) which could easily -- and has been -- converted to Western-style sym=
bolic systems. =C2=A0The concerns of these logical traditions (less clearly=
 in China, where the tradition was crushed early on in the Confucian triump=
h) were the standard ones of logic: validity, entailment, third values and =
the like. Indian logic is clearly (and Chinese possibly) intensional, as op=
posed to the extensional core of Western logic. =C2=A0It maybe that a HOIL =
(the assumed logic underlying languages) can enfold Indian logic without di=
fficulty, but it has not yet done so (I think). =C2=A0But Logjam, based on =
FOPL, is clearly not culturally neutral again.
Of course, I assume that reformers are constantly changing how Logjam is to=
 be defined and what its goals and values and property are. So, maybe all t=
he traditional ones are now passe=E2=80=99 But I am still waiting for the n=
ew list and wondering how that new list, if markedly different, can still c=
laim to be about a language in the Loglan tradition.=C2=A0

    On Saturday, November 11, 2017, 5:08:14 PM CST, guskant <gusni.kantu@gm=
ail.com> wrote: =20
=20
=20

Le samedi 11 novembre 2017 14:57:25 UTC, clifford a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
 Lojban=E2=80=99s claim to be based on logic is not significantly different=
 from the similar claim for any language (sentences derived by transformati=
ons from underlying semantic representations which are often presented as f=
ormulae in some higher order intensional logic). =C2=A0JCB ditched most of =
the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave for precision and=
 most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at least some of th=
at back (not yet all by a long shot). =C2=A0Lojban is just an SAE language =
that looks a little strange because position in a sentence does not have a =
fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the center. =C2=A0End of =
borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).The logic on which Lojban i=
s =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D is again a European creation (mainly Anglo-Americ=
an and German, with a little French and Italian). =C2=A0It takes no account=
 of the logical traditions of India or China nor of the specialized languag=
es developed there for logic. =C2=A0So, it is hardly culturally neutral in =
the sense suggested. =C2=A0Of course, the need for cultural neutrality was =
prompted by the thoroughly bogus SWH, so its absence is not very damaging, =
except to the repeated claims to have it. =C2=A0


coi la pycyn
Thank you for the historical information about Loglan and Lojban. However, =
I (and maybe la sykyndyr also) tried to "define" what to be called the curr=
ent and the future Lojban. That "definition" may be shifted from JCB's or t=
he later creaters' will.
As for my point of view of cultural neutrality, the facts of the ancient In=
dia and the ancient China you pointed out cannot negate my theory.
=C2=A0Some of what are studied in the ancient Indian and the ancient China =
are now translated as "logic" into English because of the property of studi=
es related to reasoning. However, the subjects of those studies are reasoni=
ng, not the symbols of Sanscrit or Hanzi. Those cultures did not invent wha=
t can be translated as "symbolic logic", in which a new language consisting=
 of symbols simplified and specialized for expressing logic was invented.=
=C2=A0
As I have already discussed, that language invented for European logic are =
not logic itself. That language, as well as Lojban, should be able to expre=
ss the ancient Indian logic or the ancient Chinese logic by defining suitab=
ly logical axioms and rules of deduction, just like the modern expression o=
f fraction $frac{1}{3}$ can express both European "one over three" and Chin=
ese "san fen zhi yi"; the latter consists of "three", "separation", postpos=
ition that means "of", "one".
mi'e la guskant


--=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.
 =20

--=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_359140_1651559543.1510451894888
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetic=
a, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
            <div>For a more thorough (though slightly out-of-date) version =
of all this, see The role of Error in the History of Loglans (in 8 parts or=
 so) at pkipo.blogspot.com.</div><div><br></div><div>1. &nbsp;What was the =
initial screw-up? &nbsp;FOPL (or HOIL or whatever system you choose) depend=
s upon a clear demarcation of different syntactic types (and the correspond=
ing different semantics). &nbsp;JCB, from the beginning, scrambled these ty=
pes: quantifiers (sentence-makers with one variable and one sentence) are t=
erms, conjunctions (sentence-makers with two sentences) are term-makers, mo=
dals, tenses and negation (sentence-makers with one sentence) are predicate=
 makers and so on. &nbsp;How is teh structure that allows a logical system =
to work to be found in all that muddle? &nbsp;To be sure, in the interest o=
f speakablity, some such changes will have to come about, but they are at t=
he end of a process of derivation, not at the beginning. &nbsp;Most of the =
60 year Logjam construction process has been rying to patch up this gap -- =
and there is no evidence that it has succeeded -- or is even going in the r=
ight direction. &nbsp;Monoparsing, yes (pretty much), but not evidence of c=
orrect monoparsing.</div><div><br></div><div>2. People who talk about SAE l=
anguages tend to forget what that term means in Sapir and Whorf. &nbsp;The =
characteristic of SAE languages is summed up in literal surface reading of =
S: NP + VP. &nbsp; The language consists of names of things embedded in a m=
atrix words for properties and relations and actions. &nbsp;This contrasts =
with the=E2=80=9Dpurer=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cprimitive=E2=80=9D language where =
sentences are just long complex verbs. &nbsp;S n W circularly inferred that=
 SAE speakers view the world (have a metaphysics) &nbsp;of isolated things =
and their properties, relations, and activities, while the Hopi or Menomine=
e or whatever view the world as made up of processes (what verbs refer to).=
 &nbsp;Logjam, in its various forms, is clearly of the former sort, terms a=
nd predicates. &nbsp;The fact that every aspect of this distinction is simp=
le hogwash doesn=E2=80=99t matter much, except that it does mean the Logjam=
 was, from day one, useless for testing SWH and was (in SnW=E2=80=99s terms=
) not culturally neutral.</div><div><br></div><div>3. &nbsp;To be sure, the=
 logical traditions of India and China did not develop a set of extralingui=
stic symbols to deal with their notions. &nbsp;However, they did use a rigo=
rously controlled (oh, m,y how hard to get the rules right!) stylized versi=
on of the basic language (Sanskrit or Chinese or Tibetan) which could easil=
y -- and has been -- converted to Western-style symbolic systems. &nbsp;The=
 concerns of these logical traditions (less clearly in China, where the tra=
dition was crushed early on in the Confucian triumph) were the standard one=
s of logic: validity, entailment, third values and the like. Indian logic i=
s clearly (and Chinese possibly) intensional, as opposed to the extensional=
 core of Western logic. &nbsp;It maybe that a HOIL (the assumed logic under=
lying languages) can enfold Indian logic without difficulty, but it has not=
 yet done so (I think). &nbsp;But Logjam, based on FOPL, is clearly not cul=
turally neutral again.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, I assume that re=
formers are constantly changing how Logjam is to be defined and what its go=
als and values and property are. So, maybe all the traditional ones are now=
 passe=E2=80=99 But I am still waiting for the new list and wondering how t=
hat new list, if markedly different, can still claim to be about a language=
 in the Loglan tradition.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div><br></d=
iv>
           =20
            <div id=3D"yahoo_quoted_0469784726" class=3D"yahoo_quoted">
                <div style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Aria=
l, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
                   =20
                    <div>
                        On Saturday, November 11, 2017, 5:08:14 PM CST, gus=
kant &lt;gusni.kantu@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
                    </div>
                    <div><br></div>
                    <div><br></div>
                    <div><div id=3D"yiv8363744153"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><b=
r clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">Le samedi 11 novembre 2017 14:57:25 UTC=
, clifford a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"yiv8363744153gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex;"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, s=
ans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
            <div>Lojban=E2=80=99s claim to be based on logic is not signifi=
cantly different from the similar claim for any language (sentences derived=
 by transformations from underlying semantic representations which are ofte=
n presented as formulae in some higher order intensional logic). &nbsp;JCB =
ditched most of the features of FOPL (the best then available) which gave f=
or precision and most of the last 60 years has been spent trying to get at =
least some of that back (not yet all by a long shot). &nbsp;Lojban is just =
an SAE language that looks a little strange because position in a sentence =
does not have a fixed meaning but rather depends upon the verb at the cente=
r. &nbsp;End of borrowings from logic (hyperbole, but not much).</div><div>=
The logic on which Lojban is =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D is again a European cr=
eation (mainly Anglo-American and German, with a little French and Italian)=
. &nbsp;It takes no account of the logical traditions of India or China nor=
 of the specialized languages developed there for logic. &nbsp;So, it is ha=
rdly culturally neutral in the sense suggested. &nbsp;Of course, the need f=
or cultural neutrality was prompted by the thoroughly bogus SWH, so its abs=
ence is not very damaging, except to the repeated claims to have it. &nbsp;=
</div><div><div style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sa=
ns-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;"><div><div><div><div><br clear=3D"no=
ne"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br c=
lear=3D"none"></div><div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>coi la pycyn</d=
iv><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>Thank you for the historical informat=
ion about Loglan and Lojban. However, I (and maybe la sykyndyr also) tried =
to "define" what to be called the current and the future Lojban. That "defi=
nition" may be shifted from JCB's or the later creaters' will.</div><div><b=
r clear=3D"none"></div><div>As for my point of view of cultural neutrality,=
 the facts of the ancient India and the ancient China you pointed out canno=
t negate my theory.</div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>&nbsp;Some of w=
hat are studied in the ancient Indian and the ancient China are now transla=
ted as "logic" into English because of the property of studies related to r=
easoning. However, the subjects of those studies are reasoning, not the sym=
bols of Sanscrit or Hanzi. Those cultures did not invent what can be transl=
ated as "symbolic logic", in which a new language consisting of symbols sim=
plified and specialized for expressing logic was invented.&nbsp;</div><div>=
<br clear=3D"none"></div><div>As I have already discussed, that language in=
vented for European logic are not logic itself. That language, as well as L=
ojban, should be able to express the ancient Indian logic or the ancient Ch=
inese logic by defining suitably logical axioms and rules of deduction, jus=
t like the modern expression of fraction $frac{1}{3}$ can express both Euro=
pean "one over three" and Chinese "san fen zhi yi"; the latter consists of =
"three", "separation", postposition that means "of", "one".</div><div class=
=3D"yiv8363744153yqt2981949283" id=3D"yiv8363744153yqtfd40345"><div><br cle=
ar=3D"none"></div><div>mi'e la guskant</div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><=
div><br clear=3D"none"></div></div></div></div><div class=3D"yiv8363744153y=
qt2981949283" id=3D"yiv8363744153yqtfd38940">

<p></p>

-- <br clear=3D"none">
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br clear=3D"none">
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubsc=
ribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@=
googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br clear=3D"none=
">
To post to this group, send email to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" yma=
ilto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:lo=
jban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
Visit this group at <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" target=3D"_blank" hr=
ef=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">https://groups.google.com/gro=
up/lojban</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
For more options, visit <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" target=3D"_blank=
" href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/o=
ptout</a>.<br clear=3D"none"></div></div></div></div>
                </div>
            </div></div></body></html>

<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_359140_1651559543.1510451894888--