Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 74.6.132.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.6.132.42;
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 21:09:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
To: <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1238280660.2870786.1586639353511@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18776223.2757089.1586622570213.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18776223.2757089.1586622570213@mail.yahoo.com> <CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Why Lojban fails
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2870785_1167266059.1586639353509"
Content-Length: 15076
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -3.1
X-Spam_score_int: -30
X-Spam_bar: ---

------=_Part_2870785_1167266059.1586639353509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 I wasn=E2=80=99t faulting the founders and early workers, only pointing to=
 the futility of continuing at the present. =C2=A0Things beyond FOPL were j=
ust not thought about even in graduate classes in the 50s and 60s, though t=
hey did take off rather rapidly then (I went to my first Monatague Conferen=
ce in 1973 or so, with all the hot shots present and talking above everyone=
=E2=80=99s heads). =C2=A0Some =C2=A0minor points: =C2=A0Montague=E2=80=99s =
quantification paper came out in 1960 or 61. =C2=A0He did know mereology, c=
ourtesy of Twardowsky, but didn=E2=80=99t see its relevance. =C2=A0He was a=
 Tarski student, which put some limits on him (an antipathy for Quine, for =
exampe -- another possible source of mereology)As I think (hope) I said, it=
 may turn out that some Loglan will be right, it is just that it will. be i=
mpossible to prove it so by the present system. =C2=A0JCB, by the way, knew=
 more logic than Lojbab (and got better grades, too), so we don=E2=80=99t w=
ant to be casting that as an excuse for a bad job at what he was doing. =C2=
=A0He just was a terrible experimental designer, though he did well in soci=
al psychology.=C2=A0Yeah, it took me a long time to figure out how Montague=
 (et al) ought to fit into this scheme. =C2=A0I got caught up in the projec=
t and am bad at adding one and one. (I actually don=E2=80=99t think that Mo=
ntague=E2=80=99s system itself is too relevant; it is the overall pattern t=
hat counts and that is largel Chomsky, which was available to JCB from earl=
y on.)=C2=A0
    On Saturday, April 11, 2020, 03:26:24 PM CDT, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.co=
m> wrote: =20
=20
=20
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googl=
egroups.com> wrote:

This seems like a good time for the sorta annual reminder thaat Lojban as c=
urrently constituted is doomed to fail of its intended goals.=C2=A0 The rea=
son is simply that it is built upside down, so the proofs all have to run u=
p hill.=C2=A0 This pattern was set by JCB on day one, when he decided to wo=
rk by adding logic to a speakable langauge (English), rather than extractin=
g a speakable language from loigc (not FOPL, the then favorite, but, as sho=
uld have been obvious already in the early days of Loglan, what is now call=
ed Higher Order Intensional Logic (HOIL)).=C2=A0 We know this can be done b=
ecause it is a given in (certain, e.g. Montague=E2=80=99s) linguistic theor=
ies that 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.=C2=A0 JCB developed Loglan between 1955 and 1960 and Mo=
ntague's work was not published until about a decade=C2=A0later.=C2=A0 In f=
act, due partially to Montague's premature death, and partially to the baro=
queness of the formalisms Montague employed in his terse papers, Montague s=
emantics (and what became formal semantics) did not become well known and u=
nderstood for yet another decade after that.=C2=A0 So to criticize JCB on t=
hat 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 *a=
nyone* was in a good position to incorporate Montague's work into the devel=
opment Loglan/Lojban, it was plainly you!)

Since we're on the topic, I will add that, in my opinion, Montague semantic=
s in its original form would not really have been a silver bullet for the s=
emantic issues and debates that have cropped up over the years on the Jbosk=
e list and elsewhere.=C2=A0 Montague had no inkling of either mereology or =
plural logic, and seems to have bought into Russell's quantificational anal=
ysis of definite articles (which I think is much more aptly modeled as a Hi=
lbert-type choice function, but I won't get into here).=C2=A0 There is also=
 inherent in Montague's work a deeply problematic conflation between generi=
city and intensions, and correspondingly between specificity and extensions=
 (which I also won't get into here).=C2=A0 The point is: the Great Gadri De=
bates probably would have happened anyway, simply because the issues themse=
lves are tricky.

To be clear:=C2=A0 This of course is all 100% Monday-morning quarterbacking=
 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 Montague's =
papers were not destined to save Lojban from semantic confusion even if the=
y 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 stand=
ards* I say that.=C2=A0 Considering that JCB was (if I recall correctly) a =
psychologist working (as far as I know) all by himself=C2=A0 from 1955 to 1=
960 with little training in either linguistics or logic, I actually conside=
r 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.=C2=A0 =
So JCB takes his place as a bright star in the constellation of loglang his=
tory, 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=
.
 =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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/1238280660.2870786.1586639353511%40mail.yahoo.com.

------=_Part_2870785_1167266059.1586639353509
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div class=3D"ydp383c884cyahoo-style-wrap" style=
=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px=
;"><div></div>
        <div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">I wasn=E2=80=99t faulting th=
e founders and early workers, only pointing to the futility of continuing a=
t the present. &nbsp;Things beyond FOPL were just not thought about even in=
 graduate classes in the 50s and 60s, though they did take off rather rapid=
ly then (I went to my first Monatague Conference in 1973 or so, with all th=
e hot shots present and talking above everyone=E2=80=99s heads). &nbsp;Some=
 &nbsp;minor points: &nbsp;Montague=E2=80=99s quantification paper came out=
 in 1960 or 61. &nbsp;He did know mereology, courtesy of Twardowsky, but di=
dn=E2=80=99t see its relevance. &nbsp;He was a Tarski student, which put so=
me limits on him (an antipathy for Quine, for exampe -- another possible so=
urce of mereology)</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">As I think (=
hope) I said, it may turn out that some Loglan will be right, it is just th=
at it will. be impossible to prove it so by the present system. &nbsp;JCB, =
by the way, knew more logic than Lojbab (and got better grades, too), so we=
 don=E2=80=99t want to be casting that as an excuse for a bad job at what h=
e was doing. &nbsp;He just was a terrible experimental designer, though he =
did well in social psychology.&nbsp;</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"f=
alse">Yeah, it took me a long time to figure out how Montague (et al) ought=
 to fit into this scheme. &nbsp;I got caught up in the project and am bad a=
t adding one and one. (I actually don=E2=80=99t think that Montague=E2=80=
=99s system itself is too relevant; it is the overall pattern that counts a=
nd that is largel Chomsky, which was available to JCB from early on.)&nbsp;=
</div><div><br></div>
       =20
        </div><div id=3D"yahoo_quoted_6718263338" class=3D"yahoo_quoted">
            <div style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, s=
ans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
               =20
                <div>
                    On Saturday, April 11, 2020, 03:26:24 PM CDT, Mike S. &=
lt;maikxlx@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
                </div>
                <div><br></div>
                <div><br></div>
                <div><div id=3D"yiv9969371385"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"none"><div class=3D"yiv9969371385gmail_quote"><div =
class=3D"yiv9969371385yqt3298408144" id=3D"yiv9969371385yqtfd80187"><div cl=
ass=3D"yiv9969371385gmail_attr" dir=3D"ltr">On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 12:29 P=
M 'John E Clifford' via lojban &lt;<a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" ymail=
to=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:lojb=
an@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br clear=3D"non=
e"></div><blockquote class=3D"yiv9969371385gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;"><d=
iv><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;f=
ont-size:13px;"><div dir=3D"ltr">This seems like a good time for the sorta =
annual reminder thaat Lojban as currently constituted is doomed to fail of =
its intended goals.&nbsp; The reason is simply that it is built upside down=
, so the proofs all have to run up hill.&nbsp; 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 FOP=
L, the then favorite, but, as should have been obvious already in the early=
 days of Loglan, what is now called Higher Order Intensional Logic (HOIL)).=
&nbsp; We know this can be done because it is a given in (certain, e.g. Mon=
tague=E2=80=99s) linguistic theories that that is how languages actually co=
me about.</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br clear=3D"none">I agree th=
at Montague's work is worth a look, but it's hardly fair to fault JCB on th=
at point.&nbsp; JCB developed Loglan between 1955 and 1960 and Montague's w=
ork was not published until about a decade&nbsp;later.&nbsp; In fact, due p=
artially 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.&nbsp; So to criticize JCB on that point =
is more than a little anachronistic.<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">(=
By the way, sir, forgive me for saying this: Given the timeline and given t=
he fact that JCB was not a logician, it has always seemed to me that if *an=
yone* was in a good position to incorporate Montague's work into the develo=
pment Loglan/Lojban, it was plainly you!)<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"no=
ne">Since we're on the topic, I will add that, in my opinion, Montague sema=
ntics in its original form would not really have been a silver bullet for t=
he semantic issues and debates that have cropped up over the years on the J=
boske list and elsewhere.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; There is =
also inherent in Montague's work a deeply problematic conflation between ge=
nericity and intensions, and correspondingly between specificity and extens=
ions (which I also won't get into here).&nbsp; The point is: the Great Gadr=
i Debates probably would have happened anyway, simply because the issues th=
emselves are tricky.<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">To be clear:&nbsp=
; This of course is all 100% Monday-morning quarterbacking on my part.&nbsp=
; I consider Montague as something of a genius, and I rank his contribution=
s to the field of loglanging as being in the top five, if not top three of =
all contributions.&nbsp; But the point is that Montague's papers were not d=
estined to save Lojban from semantic confusion even if they had been known =
about, which they weren't.<br clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">In summary,=
 I'll say it seems pretty obvious to me that Lojban/Loglan does not do a ve=
ry good job of being a loglang -- but it's only by *modern standards* I say=
 that.&nbsp; Considering that JCB was (if I recall correctly) a psychologis=
t working (as far as I know) all by himself&nbsp; from 1955 to 1960 with li=
ttle training in either linguistics or logic, I actually consider Loglan pr=
etty 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.&nbsp; So JCB take=
s his place as a bright star in the constellation of loglang history, regar=
dless of whether his language fails or not to be a good loglang.<br clear=
=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none"></div><div class=3D"yiv9969371385gmail_quote">=
-Mike<br clear=3D"none"></div></div></div>

<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 view this discussion on the web visit <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect"=
 target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb=
1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3D=
email&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CAO=
YwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A%40mail.gmail.com</a><div c=
lass=3D"yiv9969371385yqt3298408144" id=3D"yiv9969371385yqtfd94466">.<br cle=
ar=3D"none"></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 view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/1238280660.2870786.1586639353511%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/1=
238280660.2870786.1586639353511%40mail.yahoo.com</a>.<br />

------=_Part_2870785_1167266059.1586639353509--