Message-Id: <m0pgeR7-0000R4C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 15 Mar 1994 14:03:19 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: What have we learned in developing Lojban?  Anything
              publishable?
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1171
Lines: 22

The question regarding sumti-raising is whether it actually corresponds
linguistically to subject/object-raising.  That was my idea, but I don't know
 the literature.  For Lojban, we have a specific semantic model for
 sumti-raising
that of abstraction in the subordinate clause.  The role of abstractions
in Lojban seems like a major distinction from natural languages, especially
in them being so close to the surface.  Thus Lojban makes or breaks itself
on whether this structure has linguistic reality or at least maps closely to
linguistic reality.

I agree that the connectives issue is premature at best in providing insights
as to language.  The key data point there will be if any of the logical
connectives that DO NOT map to natlang connectives ever catch on.  I think a
few of them might.

Our breakout of causality might also lead to insights, since it is more
detailed than I think any natlang is, but it also awaits usage to really
teach us anything, and my question was more abotu what has already been
learned.  This will be revealed more in looking what we have changed in the
last few years (and earlier) than in what the language actually IS.

lojbab