Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc Return-Path: Message-Id: <9105071535.AA12982@luna.math.ucla.edu> To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Cc: Brian Eubanks Subject: Re: Self-referentials In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 May 91 13:12:32 -1000." Date: Tue, 07 May 91 08:34:59 -0700 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 8 04:28:35 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc > Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 13:12:32 HST > To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com > From: Brian Eubanks > Subject: Self-referentials > How does Lojban handle self-referential sentences, such as: > "This is a sentence in English" > "I would be a Lojban sentence, if I was translated" dei jufra fi la lojban. This is a sentence in Lojban le se fanvrpra be fi dei cu jufra fi lo'i glibau This sentence's translation is a sentence of English language (Sorry, I don't remember the proper word for subjunctive, but there is one.) When you expand either of these sentences to a referent set you hit an infinite loop re-expanding dei, and Lojban has no magic prescription to deal with this problem -- I assume Hofstadter does. Also, "dei jufra fi lo'i glibau" (this is an English sentence) is false; I don't see any philosophical problem if a sentence describes itself in such a way that one phrasing or translation is true whereas what should be equivalent is false. Another example: "This English sentence has a subordinate clause" vs. "This sentence, which is English, has a subordinate clause". -- jimc