From clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 01 14:12:06 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web81309.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.84])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Cw6Fa-0008PA-9x
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:11:58 -0800
Message-ID: <20050201221125.1247.qmail@web81309.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.49.128] by web81309.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:11:25 PST
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:11:25 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Minimal Lojban
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20050201191416.30499.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 9396
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
wrote:

> 
> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > >Insofar as Lojban is a language based on
> logic,
> > the strict minimum
> > >would be brivla, PA, KOhA, and I JA (or the
> > corresponding Polish
> > >notation).  
> 
> Also:

Thanks for the additions and corrections.
 
> NOI-KUhO, if you want to include restricted
> quantification.

I was thinking of the standard forms -- but,
since I forgot {zo'u} I coudn't do them very well
either.  The {PA brivla} format will break down
early on for the restricted forms, though we can
do without them.

> 
> ZOhU, SE or FA, otherwise you can only quantify
> in the 
> default order imposed by the brivla arguments.
> SE and FA
> are probably not enough for all cases though,
> so make 
> it ZOhU.

I think the {zo'u} format is safest; anything
less leaves -- as you say -- some arrangements
unsayable.  This gets even more pressing when we
get to the point of adding modals.
 
> XI so you don't run out of variables.

Strictly true, though I haven't seens a case
where the extra rounds were needed -- if you take
a liberal enough view of what counts as a
variable for these purposes.
 
> TUhE-TUhU, otherwise you can't get all
> groupings of the 
> connectives. (If you use GA GI instead if I JA
> you don't 
> need these.)


My favorite argument for Polish notation.  Do we
really need TUhE-TUhO?  Aren't there a set of
reverse grouping and hierarchical grouping
markers that pretty much cover all cases (there
used to be)?  Parentheses are less messy however.
 And, in any case, something more than I noted is
needed.
 
> NA and probably KU as well, for negations.

Ouch!
 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
> 
> 
>
__________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
>