Message-Id: <199602141659.LAA25417@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:22:32 -0800
Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jim Carter <jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tech: logic matters
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 96 09:30:35 EST." 
              <199602091430.JAA13105@access1.digex.net>
Status: O
Content-Length: 1547

jimc:
> >Correct.  We do seem to have a different idea of what a "logical language"
> >is: "how logicians talk" vs. "designed per consistent standards such that you
> >know what they are and can work with them".  Recent discussion reveals that
> >the Emperor's clothes are getting tattered, and new ones might be in order.

lojbab:
> Which do you feel the current Lojban is (or that we/pc are trying to make
> it, since you seem to think we disagree?

Current Lojban is very much the latter, i.e. it has a lot more consistency in
design than "typical" natural languages and a lot more useable documentation of
what the design is.  I'm not a professional logician, but my impression is that
the "how logicians talk" aspect is implemented at a fairly naive level.  The
ongoing harangue about "all", and about masses, are examples that the
definitions of these items are naive; with effective definitions there wouldn't
be so much disagreement and misunderstanding.  Of course a lot has been
learned since 1960 about what logicians are "really" saying.

The "new clothes" I allude to are in this "how logicians talk" area; as I have
been saying for years, we really do need to nail down what some of the cmavo
are supposed to mean.  You know my opinion: one meaning per word.

On looking back at my posting I can see that one might mistakenly interpret
my position overgenerally.  No, I do not advocate junking all of Lojban syntax
and semantics -- just this small (but important) part that has proven endlessly
troublesome.

                -- jimc