Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qnTbU-00005XC; Wed, 21 Sep 94 18:29 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2540; Wed, 21 Sep 94 18:27:36 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2536; Wed, 21 Sep 1994 18:27:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8067; Wed, 21 Sep 1994 17:26:18 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 09:13:37 -0600 Reply-To: Randall Holmes Sender: Lojban list From: Randall Holmes Subject: Re: Chief logician? X-To: lojbab@access.digex.net X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1106 Lines: 21 The issue of abstraction raising as you describe it is what I thought you were referring to; it is indeed quite important. TLI Loglan has the problem you have described with implicit raising of arguments in predicates; I have already noticed it. We may eventually need to do such a cleanup; I'm happy to hear that it proved to be possible (or was it a success :-) ) I also support using real terminaology for negation; for instance, having remarked that I felt that negation properly was an operation on propositions, I did go ahead and speak of negation and other logical connectives as applied to arguments... [A [B But the other forms of negation you describe (other than the metalinguistic, which I suppose really is a logical negation) could use new terms. Sometimes an existing usage is actually bad and needs to be reformed; isn't the whole Loglan enterprise an extremely radical move in that direction :-) --Randall Holmes P.S. Could we stop replying to messages with this heading? It makes me itch, as if I had some unfulfilled responsiblity somewhere...