Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <18776223.2757089.1586622570213.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18776223.2757089.1586622570213@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <18776223.2757089.1586622570213@mail.yahoo.com>
From: "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 16:26:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Why Lojban fails
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b63c0005a309a96f"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.6
X-Spam_score_int: -25
X-Spam_bar: --

--000000000000b63c0005a309a96f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> This seems like a good time for the sorta annual reminder thaat Lojban as
> currently constituted is doomed to fail of its intended goals.  The reaso=
n
> is simply that it is built upside down, so the proofs all have to run up
> hill.  This pattern was set by JCB on day one, when he decided to work by
> adding logic to a speakable langauge (English), rather than extracting a
> speakable language from loigc (not FOPL, the then favorite, but, as shoul=
d
> have been obvious already in the early days of Loglan, what is now called
> Higher Order Intensional Logic (HOIL)).  We know this can be done because
> it is a given in (certain, e.g. Montague=E2=80=99s) linguistic theories t=
hat that
> is how languages actually come about.
>

I agree that Montague's work is worth a look, but it's hardly fair to fault
JCB on that point.  JCB developed Loglan between 1955 and 1960 and
Montague's work was not published until about a decade later.  In fact, due
partially to Montague's premature death, and partially to the baroqueness
of the formalisms Montague employed in his terse papers, Montague semantics
(and what became formal semantics) did not become well known and understood
for yet another decade after that.  So to criticize JCB on that point is
more than a little anachronistic.

(By the way, sir, forgive me for saying this: Given the timeline and given
the fact that JCB was not a logician, it has always seemed to me that if
*anyone* was in a good position to incorporate Montague's work into the
development Loglan/Lojban, it was plainly you!)

Since we're on the topic, I will add that, in my opinion, Montague
semantics in its original form would not really have been a silver bullet
for the semantic issues and debates that have cropped up over the years on
the Jboske list and elsewhere.  Montague had no inkling of either mereology
or plural logic, and seems to have bought into Russell's quantificational
analysis of definite articles (which I think is much more aptly modeled as
a Hilbert-type choice function, but I won't get into here).  There is also
inherent in Montague's work a deeply problematic conflation between
genericity and intensions, and correspondingly between specificity and
extensions (which I also won't get into here).  The point is: the Great
Gadri Debates probably would have happened anyway, simply because the
issues themselves are tricky.

To be clear:  This of course is all 100% Monday-morning quarterbacking on
my part.  I consider Montague as something of a genius, and I rank his
contributions to the field of loglanging as being in the top five, if not
top three of all contributions.  But the point is that Montague's papers
were not destined to save Lojban from semantic confusion even if they had
been known about, which they weren't.

In summary, I'll say it seems pretty obvious to me that Lojban/Loglan does
not do a very good job of being a loglang -- but it's only by *modern
standards* I say that.  Considering that JCB was (if I recall correctly) a
psychologist working (as far as I know) all by himself  from 1955 to 1960
with little training in either linguistics or logic, I actually consider
Loglan pretty good from that perspective. It is most likely better than I
could have dreamt up or built if I had been alive at the same time.  So JCB
takes his place as a bright star in the constellation of loglang history,
regardless of whether his language fails or not to be a good loglang.

-Mike

--=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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A%40mail.gmail.com=
.

--000000000000b63c0005a309a96f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM &#39;John E =
Clifford&#39; via lojban &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com">loj=
ban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204=
);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica=
,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr">This seems like a good t=
ime for the sorta annual reminder thaat Lojban as currently constituted is =
doomed to fail of its intended goals.=C2=A0 The reason is simply that it is=
 built upside down, so the proofs all have to run up hill.=C2=A0 This patte=
rn was set by JCB on day one, when he decided to work by adding logic to a =
speakable langauge (English), rather than extracting a speakable language f=
rom loigc (not FOPL, the then favorite, but, as should have been obvious al=
ready in the early days of Loglan, what is now called Higher Order Intensio=
nal Logic (HOIL)).=C2=A0 We know this can be done because it is a given in =
(certain, e.g. Montague=E2=80=99s) linguistic theories that that is how lan=
guages actually come about.</div></div></div></blockquote><br>I agree that =
Montague&#39;s work is worth a look, but it&#39;s hardly fair to fault JCB =
on that point.=C2=A0 JCB developed Loglan between 1955 and 1960 and Montagu=
e&#39;s work was not published until about a decade=C2=A0later.=C2=A0 In fa=
ct, due partially to Montague&#39;s premature death, and partially to the b=
aroqueness of the formalisms Montague employed in his terse papers, Montagu=
e semantics (and what became formal semantics) did not become well known an=
d understood for yet another decade after that.=C2=A0 So to criticize JCB o=
n that point is more than a little anachronistic.<br><br>(By the way, sir, =
forgive me for saying this: Given the timeline and given the fact that JCB =
was not a logician, it has always seemed to me that if *anyone* was in a go=
od position to incorporate Montague&#39;s work into the development Loglan/=
Lojban, it was plainly you!)<br><br>Since we&#39;re on the topic, I will ad=
d that, in my opinion, Montague semantics in its original form would not re=
ally have been a silver bullet for the semantic issues and debates that hav=
e cropped up over the years on the Jboske list and elsewhere.=C2=A0 Montagu=
e had no inkling of either mereology or plural logic, and seems to have bou=
ght into Russell&#39;s quantificational analysis of definite articles (whic=
h I think is much more aptly modeled as a Hilbert-type choice function, but=
 I won&#39;t get into here).=C2=A0 There is also inherent in Montague&#39;s=
 work a deeply problematic conflation between genericity and intensions, an=
d correspondingly between specificity and extensions (which I also won&#39;=
t get into here).=C2=A0 The point is: the Great Gadri Debates probably woul=
d have happened anyway, simply because the issues themselves are tricky.<br=
><br>To be clear:=C2=A0 This of course is all 100% Monday-morning quarterba=
cking on my part.=C2=A0 I consider Montague as something of a genius, and I=
 rank his contributions to the field of loglanging as being in the top five=
, if not top three of all contributions.=C2=A0 But the point is that Montag=
ue&#39;s papers were not destined to save Lojban from semantic confusion ev=
en if they had been known about, which they weren&#39;t.<br><br>In summary,=
 I&#39;ll say it seems pretty obvious to me that Lojban/Loglan does not do =
a very good job of being a loglang -- but it&#39;s only by *modern standard=
s* I say that.=C2=A0 Considering that JCB was (if I recall correctly) a psy=
chologist working (as far as I know) all by himself=C2=A0 from 1955 to 1960=
 with little training in either linguistics or logic, I actually consider L=
oglan pretty good from that perspective. It is most likely better than I co=
uld have dreamt up or built if I had been alive at the same time.=C2=A0 So =
JCB takes his place as a bright star in the constellation of loglang histor=
y, regardless of whether his language fails or not to be a good loglang.<br=
><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">-Mike<br></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 view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A%40mai=
l.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A%40mai=
l.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--000000000000b63c0005a309a96f--