Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:33:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710240233.VAA00707@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Linguistics journals To: Lojban List In-Reply-To: <199710240121.TAA27829@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 793 Lines: 17 On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote: > > {ci}, and {tu'a} in them. In other words, maybe Lojan could be useful in > > the same way math notation or normal predicate calculus are useful. > > Don't you think linguists/logicians already HAVE such notational schemes > in place, which are accepted generally within their own communities? Why > would they want to learn a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE just so they can re-invent > the wheel? :) Well if they've already done all this, why are *we* reinventing the wheel? We could just take their scheme, add vocabulary words and a method of pronouncing the symbols. I thought what we were doing was more ambitious than what was already available. I'd be interested in hearing more about some of these notational schemes. Thanks, Chris