From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Feb 02 07:04:34 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 62227 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2005 15:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2005 15:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2005 15:04:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CwM3R-0002kS-I4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:04:29 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CwM2n-0002jw-Hp; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:03:49 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:03:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CwM2b-0002jb-EP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:03:37 -0800 Message-ID: <20050202150305.8284.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.49.128] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:03:05 PST Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:03:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20050202004450.22796.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 9404 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: 23781 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Is GA GI strictly Polish, given the GI? The > more > general gek gik, which includes things like > {genai ... > ginai ...} does not even have the full operator > content in front. Well, it isn't Lukasiewicz, so call it "forethought." The {gi} is not the problem, since it is only there because you can't otherwise always tell where the first component ends (cf. RPN from HP); the fact that {gi} can carry logical information is very unPolish, though it is merely a typographical variant of what Polish would use, namely a negation on the following component (or, I suppose, theoretically, the preceding). > > 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)? > > There is {I jek BO} for tight grouping but that > won't cover > all cases. For example {broda i ja tu'e brode i > jo brodi > i je brodo tu'u} can't be done with just {bo}. > (This is all > purely theoretical though, because such > constructions are > utterly incomprehensible without detailed > analysis anyway.) Alas, painfully true -- and true even of extended cases using only regular connectives of any kind. Standard logic -- when it wants to dispense with parentheses without going Polish -- has a system of depth tags (usually something like ', '', ... or ., :, and so on). Can {bo} be repeated to give closer and closer bindings? Or subscripted? This won't make matters clearer, of course, but it does give the system completeness. Subscripting the connectives would also match at least one logician's practice. But that also requires a kind of forethought that is nt likely to come to the speaker any more than it is likely to be interpretable by the hearer (your example would be {p ija q ijobobo (or {boxire} -- or {pa}, depending on convention -- or just {xire}) r ijebo s})