Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <18776223.2757089.1586622570213.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <18776223.2757089.1586622570213@mail.yahoo.com> <CAOYwWb1SgvN3NuySdsiSvcG5e4Lj9cwkVfN7uf-bp3vcCLkz-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1238280660.2870786.1586639353511@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1238280660.2870786.1586639353511@mail.yahoo.com>
From: "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:10:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOYwWb3jXA-XVQjd-_ToKkk9c5em0FnjXMuc96GNKuerrcN4GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Why Lojban fails
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000034edce05a30b20dd"
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: --

--00000000000034edce05a30b20dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just a couple more random points...

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:09 PM 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I wasn=E2=80=99t faulting the founders and early workers, only pointing t=
o the
> futility of continuing at the present.  Things beyond FOPL were just not
> thought about even in graduate classes in the 50s and 60s, though they di=
d
> take off rather rapidly then (I went to my first Monatague Conference in
> 1973 or so, with all the hot shots present and talking above everyone=E2=
=80=99s
> heads).
>

If you were there in 1973, I envy you.  You witnessed history.


>  Some  minor points:  Montague=E2=80=99s quantification paper came out in=
 1960 or
> 61.
>

Sorry, sir, but I believe you're off by 10 years.  His first two big papers
introducing his system of analyzing a "fragment" of English as if it were a
formal language came out in 1970, and his most famous paper Proper
Treatment of Quantification in English was published in 1973 posthumously.
Montague had earlier papers, but they were on (I believe) set theory and
not related to his "grammar" (really semantics).  And as you yourself point
out, even in 1973 it was a small closed club of people who actually
understood what he was talking about.  The earliest Montague paper dealing
with language was 67/68 I believe, but it's been overshadowed by the more
famous three that came out later.


>  He did know mereology, courtesy of Twardowsky, but didn=E2=80=99t see it=
s
> relevance.
>

I am sure Montague was aware of mereology, but it does not figure into his
system.  I can look up the dates, but I also believe plural logic was not
even on the scene prior to 1973 (Boolos(??)). Interestingly, Barbara Partee
has been deciphering Montague's private notes (written in a private
shorthand) and she reports that Montague was privately flummoxed by the
logic of some sentence in English involving plurals.  As a person who has
read the Jboske archives, that made me smile.  If he had lived and wrote
the book that he was planning on writing (which would have been a classic
and which we've been robbed of by fate, in my estimation) I believe
Montague would have been forced to deal with plurals (and masses), just as
jboskepre were so forced.


> He was a Tarski student, which put some limits on him (an antipathy for
> Quine, for exampe -- another possible source of mereology)
>
Quine was a foundations-of-math guy, and his famous disdain for
intensional/modal logic is fine for a certain approach towards math, but
it's completely inapt when applied to human language.  We talking humans
use intensions constantly; they need to be handled like they're real values
for expressions.  In other words, nonexistent things are part of the model;
nonexistent things absolutely do figure into the value of words -- even if
one has qualms about their existence. (Actually, one should have
ontological qualms -- that's the whole point -- but semantic qualms are
impractical.)  Quine himself remarked upon his review of Loglan that he
thought that human language was too messy to be logical and therefore,
though Loglan was interesting to him, he thought it was hopeless.  Mind you
for Quine "logic" by definition excluded modal logic. I can dig up Quine's
exact quote on Loglan if you're interested (not the one JCB circulated).

In short I don't know why Quine has had the influence he has had on
Loglan/Lojban.  His idea of logic was far too austere to be used as a basis
for human logical language. Kripke's work is much closer to the mark, and
it was Montague who noticed this and showed how modal logic could be used
to (directly) analyze English.

As I think (hope) I said, it may turn out that some Loglan will be right,
> it is just that it will. be impossible to prove it so by the present
> system.  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 fo=
r a bad
> job at what he was doing.  He just was a terrible experimental designer,
> though he did well in social psychology.
> Yeah, it took me a long time to figure out how Montague (et al) ought to
> fit into this scheme.  I got caught up in the project and am bad at addin=
g
> one and one. (I actually don=E2=80=99t think that Montague=E2=80=99s syst=
em itself is too
> relevant; it is the overall pattern that counts and that is largel Chomsk=
y,
> which was available to JCB from early on.)
>

If someone was enterprising enough, they could write _Proper Treatment of
Quantification in Lojban_.  Any takers?

-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/CAOYwWb3jXA-XVQjd-_ToKkk9c5em0FnjXMuc96GNKuerrcN4GQ%40mail.gmail.com=
.

--00000000000034edce05a30b20dd
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><div class=3D"gmail_attr">Just a couple more random points...<br></div><=
div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"><br>On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:09 PM &#=
39;John E Clifford&#39; via lojban &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroup=
s.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2=
04,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue=
,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
        <div dir=3D"ltr">I wasn=E2=80=99t faulting the founders and early w=
orkers, only pointing to the futility of continuing at the present.=C2=A0 T=
hings beyond FOPL were just not thought about even in graduate classes in t=
he 50s and 60s, though they did take off rather rapidly then (I went to my =
first Monatague Conference in 1973 or so, with all the hot shots present an=
d talking above everyone=E2=80=99s heads).</div></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br>If you were there in 1973, I envy you.=C2=A0 You witnessed history.<=
br>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 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:13=
px"><div dir=3D"ltr"> =C2=A0Some =C2=A0minor points: =C2=A0Montague=E2=80=
=99s quantification paper came out in 1960 or 61. </div></div></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div></div><div>Sorry, sir, but I believe you&#39;re o=
ff by 10 years.=C2=A0 His first two big papers introducing his system of an=
alyzing a &quot;fragment&quot; of English as if it were a formal language c=
ame out in 1970, and his most famous paper Proper Treatment of Quantificati=
on in English was published in 1973 posthumously.=C2=A0 Montague had earlie=
r papers, but they were on (I believe) set theory and not related to his &q=
uot;grammar&quot; (really semantics).=C2=A0 And as you yourself point out, =
even in 1973 it was a small closed club of people who actually understood w=
hat he was talking about.=C2=A0 The earliest Montague paper dealing with la=
nguage was 67/68 I believe, but it&#39;s been overshadowed by the more famo=
us three that came out later.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica N=
eue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr">=C2=A0He di=
d know mereology, courtesy of Twardowsky, but didn=E2=80=99t see its releva=
nce. =C2=A0</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am sure Mon=
tague was aware of mereology, but it does not figure into his system.=C2=A0=
 I can look up the dates, but I also believe plural logic was not even on t=
he scene prior to 1973 (Boolos(??)). Interestingly, Barbara Partee has been=
 deciphering Montague&#39;s private notes (written in a private shorthand) =
and she reports that Montague was privately flummoxed by the logic of some =
sentence in English involving plurals.=C2=A0 As a person who has read the J=
boske archives, that made me smile.=C2=A0 If he had lived and wrote the boo=
k that he was planning on writing (which would have been a classic and whic=
h we&#39;ve been robbed of by fate, in my estimation) I believe Montague wo=
uld have been forced to deal with plurals (and masses), just as jboskepre w=
ere so forced. <br><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetic=
a,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr">He was a Tarski student=
, which put some limits on him (an antipathy for Quine, for exampe -- anoth=
er possible source of mereology)</div></div></div></blockquote><div>Quine w=
as a foundations-of-math guy, and his famous disdain for intensional/modal =
logic is fine for a certain approach towards math, but it&#39;s completely =
inapt when applied to human language.=C2=A0 We talking humans use intension=
s constantly; they need to be handled like they&#39;re real values for expr=
essions.=C2=A0 In other words, nonexistent things are part of the model; no=
nexistent things absolutely do figure into the value of words -- even if on=
e has qualms about their existence. (Actually, one should have ontological =
qualms -- that&#39;s the whole point -- but semantic qualms are impractical=
.)=C2=A0 Quine himself remarked upon his review of Loglan that he thought t=
hat human language was too messy to be logical and therefore, though Loglan=
 was interesting to him, he thought it was hopeless.=C2=A0 Mind you for Qui=
ne &quot;logic&quot; by definition excluded modal logic. I can dig up Quine=
&#39;s exact quote on Loglan if you&#39;re interested (not the one JCB circ=
ulated).<br><br></div><div>In short I don&#39;t know why Quine has had the =
influence he has had on Loglan/Lojban.=C2=A0 His idea of logic was far too =
austere to be used as a basis for human logical language. Kripke&#39;s work=
 is much closer to the mark, and it was Montague who noticed this and showe=
d how modal logic could be used to (directly) analyze English.=C2=A0 <br></=
div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 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-siz=
e:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr">As I think (hope) I said, it may turn out that som=
e Loglan will be right, it is just that it will. be impossible to prove it =
so by the present system.=C2=A0 JCB, by the way, knew more logic than Lojba=
b (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 he was doing.=C2=A0 He just was a terri=
ble experimental designer, though he did well in social psychology.=C2=A0</=
div><div dir=3D"ltr">Yeah, it took me a long time to figure out how Montagu=
e (et al) ought to fit into this scheme.=C2=A0 I got caught up in the proje=
ct and am bad at adding one and one. (I actually don=E2=80=99t think that M=
ontague=E2=80=99s system itself is too relevant; it is the overall pattern =
that counts and that is largel Chomsky, which was available to JCB from ear=
ly on.)=C2=A0</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If someone was e=
nterprising enough, they could write _Proper Treatment of Quantification in=
 Lojban_.=C2=A0 Any takers?<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">-Mike<b=
r></div></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/CAOYwWb3jXA-XVQjd-_ToKkk9c5em0FnjXMuc96GNKuerrcN4GQ%40mai=
l.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CAOYwWb3jXA-XVQjd-_ToKkk9c5em0FnjXMuc96GNKuerrcN4GQ%40mai=
l.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--00000000000034edce05a30b20dd--