From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Thu Oct 17 14:27:52 1991
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN>
Date: Thu Oct 17 14:27:52 1991
Message-Id: <9110171625.AA13152@relay1.UU.NET>
Reply-To: David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!UUNET.UU.NET!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!infmx!godzilla!cortesi>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!LOJBAN>
From: David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!UUNET.UU.NET!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!infmx!godzilla!cortesi>
Subject:      Re: Chassel's alternative translations
X-To:         Lojban mailing list
              <uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!lojban@uunet.UU.NET>
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
Status: RO

I sent a version of the following to Bob Chassell and he suggested I
post it as well.

Leave us not forget that the foundation of Lo[jb/gl]an is supposed
to be predicate logic.  If you want a non-English way to look
at the gismu [an excellent idea!], would it not be more productive
to restate them in the formal notation of logic?

Very loosely (I ain't a logician, I just found a Horne clause...)
Instead of:
       jukpa              x1: <cooker/preparer>
                          x2: <food-prepared>
                          x3: <recipe/method-of-food-preparation>

        jukpa(A,B,C) :- cooker(A)
                        & foodstuff(B)
                        & preparation_method(C)
                        & employs_on(A,C,B)

Some of the real logicians could surely do this much better. [please!]
My point is, why struggle to invent a new notation?

Dave Cortesi