Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:19:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710240219.VAA00175@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: Linguistics journals X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EIJ00CEY783XD@newcastle.edu.au> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 868 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 23 21:19:13 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Chris Bogart wrote: > Could Lojban be used, if not "studied" as such, by a linguist/logician as > a tool for discussing and illustrating some fine points of linguistic > logic? Not writing *in* lojban, just giving examples in Lojban. An > abstract discussion of how abstraction, quantification, and argument > raising (to pick three things out of the hat) would be less readable and > more prone to error than one that analyzed example sentences with {nu}, > {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? :) Geoff