Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:47:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710250747.CAA26240@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ni To: lee@piclab.com Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2648 Lines: 43 >In computer terms, knowing that function1(arg1, arg2) is in the >correct syntax doesn't tell me what the function does; for that I need >not only a description of the function but some idea of what kinds of >arguments it expects and what it will do with them. Even in a "loosely >typed" language like Lojban (where any argument can syntactically fit >into any place), I still need to know what arguments are /expected/ >to know how to call the function. > >So the question becomes, what kinds of arguments are expected in the >function call {xy. ni broda zy.}? Maybe saying "a quantity" and >"a scale for that quantity" is sufficent definition, and if we fill >it with either a number or an abstraction, so be it. But if that >causes other problems (and I'm not sure that it does, but I still >suspect so}, then maybe we need to be clearer. Maybe we do, but I suspect that until we get people actually trying to communicate in the language a lot more, we won't be able to tell what constructions are "sufficiently clear". In particular we know that whatever the semantics are of function1(arg1, arg2), in Lojban if we want something that uses arg3 with a particular semantics to it, there will be SOME way to add in that arg3, and if we want a differnet flavor of arg2, or even to leave out arg2, we can do that also. It isn;t instinctive to us NOW how to do this kind of thing - I suspect that it will be one of the early tricks that gets mastered. I've had ways of doing so myself that I hone through ad hoc usage, but until I get in a position to use the language heavily, my own ad hockeries will not necessarily prove convincing to anyone else. But I think they WILL be settled by usage much more quickly than by debate. Then after we get more usage history, we will be in a position to more intelligently deabte and seek general solutions. But that is what we mean by having only promised a 5 year baseline. It may very well take that long before we knwo the language well enough to go to the next level of semantics specification, and I do not presume to say how Lojbanists of 5 years from now will see the problems or their solutions. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.