Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:30:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712151630.LAA29879@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: For And's pleasure X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1477 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 15 11:30:57 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > Here is the promised sample of TLI Loglan "logic". I give first the > English that is intended to be translated. I note of course what appears > to be an indirect question which makes it even more relevant. I agree with Jorge that it needn't be read as an indirect question. > "And worst of all it was impossible to say what you meant. The semantics > of Xlang were as slippery as a greased eel." > > . i da poi xlalymau ro de du lenu ro nu daxivo cusku daximu poi sinxa daxixa > poi termukti daxivo [kei] pu nalcumki > .i le selsinxyciste be xy pu se sakli du'i loi sligygrasygacri finpranguili I don't see what's so mabla logji about it. "Daxipa" is extremely ugly, but necessitated by the language which provides for only 3 (or 5 in Loglan, you say) morphologically simplex bindable variables. I assume that poi xlalymau ro de du is poi xlalymau ro de ku`o du All in all, it doesn't seem at all egregious. At the same time, I don't see why it is a "logical gem"; it seems pretty straightfoward. (My comments pertain to the first sentence; I agree with Jorge on the second sentence.) > Do they handle indirect questions in any interesting or useful way? > (I note BTW that I spotted instances where they use the equivalent of > lenu for "the fact that", so they seem to equate nu and du'u sometimes > while using nu for events at other times.) Using "le/lo nu" for "the fact that" is not necessarily a bad thing. It could even be a good thing. --And