From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 28 15:42:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 22:42:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 5066 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 22:42:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 22:42:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 22:42:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.190.e0c5237 (4012) for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <190.e0c5237.2ac78a5b@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:42:35 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_190.e0c5237.2ac78a5b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16177 --part1_190.e0c5237.2ac78a5b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2002 3:39:31 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > If I understand correctly, "the usual language of formal > logic" would have something like ~Fab > > This can be described as: > > 1- Negation in front of the predicate > 2- Negation in front of the whole expression > > Lojban does: a~Fb, so as far as negation goes, it either follows > the usual language of formal logic (by 1) or it does not follow the > usual language of formal logic (by 2). >> Taxicab again. Now I see your point: the Lojban is neither out in front marking out in front nor inside marking inside, so what is logical about it? Answer -- historical and JCB-related (and we know what that means): English represents ~Fab by a~Fb, even when a is a quantified expression (though not always), so the way that natural langauges represent ~Fab is a~Fb (this is still pretty much true for SAE, with variants -- less true for French, if I remember rightly; I don't remember the distribution for Spanish cases; pretty true for German), so Loglan (hence, Lojban) should represent ~Fab (even if a is quantified, i.e., ~ QxFxb) as a~Fb. Yeah, I know, but that is sorta how it went and we are stuck with it (although I don't find it that hard to deal with, since it is so like (my) English). --part1_190.e0c5237.2ac78a5b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2002 3:39:31 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

If I understand correctly, "the usual language of formal
logic" would have something like ~Fab

This can be described as:

1- Negation in front of the predicate
2- Negation in front of the whole expression

Lojban does: a~Fb, so as far as negation goes, it either follows
the usual language of formal logic (by 1) or it does not follow the
usual language of formal logic (by 2).

>>
Taxicab again. Now I see your point: the Lojban is neither out in front marking out in front nor inside marking inside, so what is logical about it? Answer -- historical and JCB-related (and we know what that means): English represents ~Fab by a~Fb, even when a is a quantified expression (though not always), so the way that natural langauges represent ~Fab is a~Fb (this is still pretty much true for SAE, with variants -- less true for French, if I remember rightly; I don't remember the distribution for Spanish cases; pretty true for German), so Loglan (hence, Lojban) should represent ~Fab (even if a is quantified, i.e., ~ QxFxb) as a~Fb. Yeah, I know, but that is sorta how it went and we are stuck with it (although I don't find it that hard to deal with, since it is so like (my) English). --part1_190.e0c5237.2ac78a5b_boundary--