From samuelriv@yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 16:02:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: samuelriv@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 23:02:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 95955 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 23:02:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 23:02:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 23:02:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: samuelriv@yahoo.com Received: from [10.1.2.163] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Aug 2001 23:02:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:02:16 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Symbolic Logic and Lojban Message-ID: <9mp51o+716k@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3748 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.143.84.245 From: samuelriv@yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10356 I've actually sent this message to another group- that's why some of it might sound weird. I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm interested in your opinions on this analysis of Bertrand Russell, whose philosophy is the structural model of lojban. I've been studying symbolic and semantic logic, and have been trying to incorporate their principles into an IAL (international auxiliary language) which I am creating. lojban is a language based on mathematical logic, something that I have previously, and always will, swear by. Anyway my experience with lojban has not been very uplifting and I think I can blame this on the linguistic ideas of Bertrand Russel. Obviously Bertrand Russel is GOD of logic, but I think his application of logic to linguistics was severely faulty. Essentially he designated all sentences in the form F(x,y,...) where the F function is the verb and the arguments act as each segment acting as a noun, adjective, or adverb. For example, the sentence "I went to school at three o'clock today" would be symbolized as 'went(I,school,3:00,today) where the place value system would denote how each argument would act in the sentence. Now this system can effectively translate any sentence in any language, so Bertrand, I applaud that. Now let's see what happens when we want to CHANGE a sentence while preserving the function. For example, instead of "I went to school today" you want to say "I went to school in Chicago today". These would be represented by: 'went(I,school,today)' and 'went(I,school,Chicago,today)' Now the addition of Chicago creates a fourth place value denoting location instead of time, and the only way this can happen is if the FUNCTION changed. So essentially if you want to use a Russelian logic-language, you would have to create your verbs (or functions) to account for all possible arguments, otherwise there must be an influx of modified verb forms to adjust for necessary arguments, or, more likely, language use will be constricted and never creative, and usage will collapse. lojban, to get around this problem, used complicated functions have up to five place values, some making little sense. For example, "lanci" is lojban for flag. If you want to say "that is a flag" you say "za lanci". Now, there are four place values, so you can say anything (the arguments are capitalized) on the lines of "THAT is a flag symbolizing AMERICA with pattern of STARS AND STRIPES on material of COTTON". However, if you want to say "That is a flag hanging on a flagpole" or "next to my house", then you have serious problems, and lojban attempts to resolve them with essentially new functions and new arguments, and meanwhile all the arguments you DON'T want to fill in must be replaced by "zo'e", so essentially "za lanci zo'e zo'e zo'e mopni" which means "That flag is made of cotton" The following I am adding in to my previous post: This is a completely linear interpretation of linguistics. It allows for complete transcription of any sentence at any moment into root functions, but it fails to realize the amount of language that is creative. Language is about building and demolishing and shaping; by mathematical survey chances are that over half the sentences we speak each day have NEVER been spoken by ANYONE in human history. IMHO, lojban hits high on every note except its key, its foundation, if you will, and this I feel is fatal. Bertrand Russel was an excellent mathematician, philosopher, and logician, but his attempt at linking the worlds of symbolic logic to natural linguistics failed miserably. -Samuel Rivier P.S. Thank you for listening- again, the original message wasn't intended for lojbanists so I apologize if it hits below the belt