From sentto-44114-1771-mark=kli.org@onelist.com Sat Jan 01 18:20:34 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 27794 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2000 18:20:33 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 1 Jan 2000 18:20:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 9960 invoked by uid 40001); 1 Jan 2000 18:24:59 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 9957 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2000 18:24:59 -0000 Received: from pop2.onelist.com (HELO onelist.com) (209.207.164.207) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 1 Jan 2000 18:24:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 31940 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2000 18:24:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 31933 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2000 18:24:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (209.207.164.239) by pop2.onelist.com with QMQP; 1 Jan 2000 18:24:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by 209.207.164.239 with SMTP; 1 Jan 2000 18:24:55 -0000 Received: (from cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10689 for lojban@onelist.com; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:20 -0500 (EST) From: John Cowan Message-Id: <200001011829.NAA10689@locke.ccil.org> To: lojban@onelist.com Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "And Rosta" at Jan 1, 0 01:27:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Subject: Re: [lojban] On international applications of Lojban Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit From: John Cowan And Rosta scripsit: > And very probably it was easier to work out > the mapping from natlangs to Esperanto than from natlangs to something > as stark as predicate logic form. IIRC, the main advantage was that it was easier to check the interlingua for correctness, becasue that merely required people who understood Desperanto (Esperanto + small number of hacks). > Given that pred logic notation differs from natlangs in its extreme > simplicity, it would be interesting to find if some system can be so > simple it is unlearnable. JCB believed that Loglan '60 (the version documented in Scientific American, which was really really close to speakable-predicate-logic) was indeed too small to be learnable; he described it as "rattling around in learners' heads like a pea", IIRC). > I was assuming that for patents, all that counts is an unambiguous encoding > of truth-conditional meaning. That of course is a very restricted set > of goals. IMNSHO, having read or rather decoded a fair number of patents, I believe that what counts is to disclose everything, thus claiming legal protection, while in fact revealing nothing to one's competitors. For these purposes, what is wanted is a language which is a mass of ambiguity and can be twisted into meaning, post hoc, almost anything one wants it to mean, while remaining utterly unintelligible on the surface to anyone except the writers. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU! Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons! Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com