From thinkit8@lycos.com Sat Dec 22 20:27:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 23 Dec 2001 04:27:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 49930 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2001 04:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Dec 2001 04:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.74) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2001 04:27:55 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.116] by n24.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Dec 2001 04:27:55 -0000 Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 04:27:52 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Binary Language Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <10e.9b28d45.295690fc@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 7385 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "thinkit41" X-Originating-IP: 12.228.237.29 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=71054096 X-Yahoo-Profile: thinkit41 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12680 Ok, I fixed a lot of logical inconsistencies (leave it to a lojban group to point nearly all of them out--thanks) and typos. --- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote: > is based upon binary. It is expected that this main difference will reveal > how our vocalization limits have limited our range of thought.> > > This makes no sense -- even ignoring the lack of an explanation of what > 'based on binary" means. Any human expression can be binarized and every > binary expression can be vocalized, each in a number of quite trivial ways. > So this does not reflect a relevant difference unless -- and until - - we have > some nontrivial difference pointed out. I didn't see that in the remainder > of this short sketch. > > contained in sentences. It consists of a truth table, 2 arguments, an > operation, and 0 or more sentence tags. The sentence tags serve to identify > an argument that operates on the sentence itself.> > > Huh? Sentence consists of 1) a truth table -- of what? typically truth > tables are for sets of sentences, so this sounds like an infinite regress -- > each sentence has a truth table for a set of sentences which each have a > truth table for.... Alternatively, a truth table for a single sentence just > has two values (or whatever the basic range is). 2) two arguments > (names/pronouns?) 3) an operation -- on what? 4)sentence tags that identify > and argument that operates on the sentence itself -- again terminological > problems: arguments typically are not things that operate on setences or > anything else, rather they are what are operated on. > Is this the order in which the components of a sentence occur or can the > pieces be jumbled toether hoggledy-piggledy? Ok I tried to clarify the points a bit better. The order is given in the sentence structure below (and is the same). > all the combinations of true and false of the following sentences.> > Heres is that problem come in -- since each sentence contains a truth table > and each sentence is in agroup for purposes of some truth table which deals > with the following sentences, where is the truth table that actually deals > with what? > I take it that this is an attempt to deal with the problem that Lojban (and > usual logical notation) does not do expeditiously, namely connections among > more that two sentences, but the statement here is not clear enough to see > whether it is useful. I would have expected that sentences per se did not > have truth tables as essential parts but sentence groups (? paragraphs?) did: > essentially the list of values for the appropriate combination of the > sentences in the group in the usual order). > with focus 1, and 2 with focus 2 argument ideas, as well as base and custom. > 0 argument ideas are useful for expressing attitudes (interjections), such as > "ARGH". 1 argument ideas are for intransitive verbs, descriptions ("is"), or > identification ("is a"). 2 argument ideas are for transitive verbs. The > focus must be set to 1 for the rightmost idea in a sentence op.> > > Ideas ain't words and conversely, though I think the plan here is for a very > tight relation between "basic ideas" and "basic words" (whether the first > notion really makes absolute sense, it can be used relative to a aprticular > system; the second of course is just gismu, I suppose). The next sentence is > grammatically obscure in one place but later examples explain it: there are > four kinds of ideas, depending on adicity first (0, 1, and 2 places) and, in > the case of 2, on whether the "subject" is the first or second term. There > are also basic and derived words (I think "idea" is essentially > "predicates", and I have interpreted "base" and "custom" ). > Can ever idea be reduced to either a medadic, monadic or dyadic relation? > How do we partitiion up "give"? And so on? Give is simple, the subject (arg1) is the giver, and the object (arg2) is the object given. A sentence tag defines the recipient. Are there any really ternary verbs in English? You only get things like "give me the object" because we are shortening from "give the object to me". > word to their right. The rightmost idea word will always define the > appropriate number and description of the arguments to be used. Parentheses > can be used to group items together, but the right modifying rule remains. > > > Is this the same as the "operation" mentioned earlier? Apparently not > exactly for -- as near as I can make out -- that might be an "idea," whereas > operators are strings of ideas: read "gismu" and "tanru", apparently -- with > Lojban rules. > Why are there two arguments in every sentence is some operations are medadic > and some monadic (what are the extra arguments? Come to that, what are > arguments altogether?) The arguments must have the placeholder "not in operation", as explained in the structure below. As for lojban, an operation is almost exactly like a selbri. An idea (which I renamed concept), is a lot like a gismu or lujvo. > algorithm to be determined> > For instance, by putting the code for left paren and righ parent before and > after the codes for the operators? > first must be assigned an ID with a backcount to count arguments backwards in > order to point to a previous argumnet. All arguments count when looking > backwards...thus it can be assumed that a sentence has 2 arguments plus 2 for > every tag. > > After, it can be used by refering to the ID. In this way, the reference > serves as both the pronoun (he, she, it), and the name.> > > Does this mean that when we come to refer to the same thing again, it gets an > ID that consists of the backcount to its previous occurrence? If so, then > how is it referred to the third time, when the count will presumably be > different? So, that is probably not what the ID is: How does it get its > initial reference? If this is simple enough, why not use it as you say as > both pronoun and name (repetition is also anaphora)? > If we need a backcount, what do we do with subordinate references within > references or are they eliminated somehow? How id "John's mother" dealt > with, in other words? I changed it to indicate that intial assignment involves both a backcount and an ID. > Why does a tag need two arguments (what are tags anyhow? no examples so far). Because tags involve operations, and all operations have two argument (even if some are just a placeholder). > The final muck (base conventions undefined -- I take it that some of you can > recognize familiar patterns here) does not answer any of these questions, > alas. I listed the conventions, so perhaps the muck will have some meaning now.