From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Feb 01 14:13:19 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 9690 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2005 22:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2005 22:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 22:13:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw6Gr-0008Rm-L7 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:13:17 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw6Fn-0008PW-S5; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:12:11 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81309.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.84]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw6Fa-0008PA-9x for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:11:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20050201221125.1247.qmail@web81309.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.49.128] by web81309.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:11:25 PST Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:11:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20050201191416.30499.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 9396 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Minimal Lojban X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23775 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > >Insofar as Lojban is a language based on > logic, > > the strict minimum > > >would be brivla, PA, KOhA, and I JA (or the > > corresponding Polish > > >notation). > > Also: Thanks for the additions and corrections. > NOI-KUhO, if you want to include restricted > quantification. I was thinking of the standard forms -- but, since I forgot {zo'u} I coudn't do them very well either. The {PA brivla} format will break down early on for the restricted forms, though we can do without them. > > ZOhU, SE or FA, otherwise you can only quantify > in the > default order imposed by the brivla arguments. > SE and FA > are probably not enough for all cases though, > so make > it ZOhU. I think the {zo'u} format is safest; anything less leaves -- as you say -- some arrangements unsayable. This gets even more pressing when we get to the point of adding modals. > XI so you don't run out of variables. Strictly true, though I haven't seens a case where the extra rounds were needed -- if you take a liberal enough view of what counts as a variable for these purposes. > TUhE-TUhU, otherwise you can't get all > groupings of the > connectives. (If you use GA GI instead if I JA > you don't > need these.) My favorite argument for Polish notation. Do we really need TUhE-TUhO? Aren't there a set of reverse grouping and hierarchical grouping markers that pretty much cover all cases (there used to be)? Parentheses are less messy however. And, in any case, something more than I noted is needed. > NA and probably KU as well, for negations. Ouch! > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > >