Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA
In-Reply-To: <an1vg3+n1pj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209270911130.1509-100000@simba.math.ucla.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Jim Carter <jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Content-Length: 1272
Lines: 27

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > It's actually pretty simple: there's no need to do real thinking
> > about the sentence:
> >   - if you can rephrase it as "It is false that: foo", the na is
> fine.
>
> I call that real thinking, and that't exactly what I do to
> analyze it. But I don't want to have to rephrase a sentence
> in order to understand it. I don't want to have to translate
> it in the first place.

Perhaps the real issue is that you have to reprogram your semantic analyser
for real logic.  Mapping Lojban 1-1 into an illogical natlang is going to
mangle the result, particularly where "carbon units" are most sloppy in
their logic.  I've actually gotten into the habit of using Lojban-style
predicate logic and quantifier scope (and negation) internally, I remember
a case where two friends were discussing, and one said the exact opposite
of what he intended due to a botched negation, and I was able to catch this
on the fly and "translate", short-circuiting 15 minutes of hot air.

James F. Carter          Voice 310 825 2897    FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet;  6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA  90095-1555
Email: jimc@math.ucla.edu    http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)