Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:09:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712041609.LAA08890@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: On Lojban X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1956 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 4 11:09:42 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: > I want to add that I think a key problem in choosing immediate vs long term > goals has to do with the pedagogical sophistication of those who are > teaching the language. If I am writing the Lojban textbook, then the logical > aspects that are taught therein will be no more sophisticated than I have been > able to learn. This will no doubt be a depressing thought for you and Jorge %^) > > I have some reason to beleive that as the community gets larger, and Lojban > skill gets greater, that either I will come to be able to teach the logical > part of the language better, or someone else with better skills at those > aspects will come along to write a second textbook or add to my basic one > to improve the logical teaching. I do feel that our logic debates do eventually lead to wider understanding of the issues. For example, in recent discussions of LE/LO, several people besides me & Jorge contributed, and all understood the difference correctly, except Bob (and maybe you). Also, it is my impression that likewise quite a few people (not including you) understand the dual definitions of ni and jei. > You can make the logical aspects of the langauge as perfect as you like, but if > no one learns and uses them, it will be hard to prove that they work > communicatively, nor even that the resulting design is a "language". > The refgrammar, for all its apparent flaws to you, is more sophisticated > than any textbook I could have written before it was done, and thus represents > the limit to which the "logical language" goal can be reached at this present > time. I think the refgrammar is a magnificent achievement, given the various powerful and conflicting constraints that the author was under. I am confident that we could proceed in refining the logical aspects in a learnable and usable way. Not everyone in the world would be able to learn and use them, but that's to be expected with a logical language. --And