From tk1@despammed.com Sat Jun 28 03:54:48 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: tk1@despammed.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81923 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2003 10:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jun 2003 10:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.77) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2003 10:54:48 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.121] by n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jun 2003 10:54:48 -0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:54:45 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Better Communication of Ideas Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1518 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "c1tk" X-Originating-IP: 165.21.154.8 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=134553381 X-Yahoo-Profile: c1tk X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20239 Hello all, [sshiskom:] > I'm confused. Leo says languages can be made simpler, more regular, > more systematic. And then he asks if they can be made "better". > Isn't being simpler, more regular, more systematic, a good thing? I think, sometimes not. A simpler, more regular, more systematic language may also be more verbose, thus in a way another language may be "better". (Indeed, when I e.g. try to translate stuff to Lojban, I often have to insert lots of slack words in order not to convey a totally _different_ meaning; this is not the same as conveying the same meaning ambiguously.) I suppose a language designer will have to regularly deal with the tensions from such conflicting goals. As far as clear communication goes, these are some things I like about Lojban: 1. Descriptors. Words like {le}, {lo}, {lo'e} indicate precisely which objects are being referenced. This can clear up things a lot, especially in discussions on philosophy. <> 2. Unambiguous logical connectives -- enough said. My only complaint is that the definition of the connectives assumes an Aristotlean/Boolean world view, and cannot adequately express other logics, e.g. intuitionistic logic. Thanks, -- GPG:faf73a82 http://bicoherent.topcities.com/ GCS/MU d- s: a- C++() UL P++(+++) L++(+++) E- W++ N(+) o K? w--- O? M? V? PS(+) PE Y+ PGP+ t? 5? X- R- tv-() b+ DI(+) D+ G e++ h-- !r>+++ !y