Having spent thirty five years adapting Logjam and logic = to more or less coincide -- working on extensions of logic as well as= of Logjam, I think it fair to say that you are talking through a nether or= ifice. I remember the fights I had to do to get 'joi' in (well, pre-'= joi' since this was back in Loglan). Won that one eventually, lost a = lot of others -- like trying to organize UI and kin into something resembli= ng logical structures (I won't even talk about the semantic mishmash there)= . The "built on" line used to mean that logical transformation were t= ransparent (or, at least, rule governed starting with the surface structure= ). That typically involved scraping away a lot of stuff, but, again, = the scraping was rule governed: a question had certain marks to identify it, similarly an exhortation or a promise or an expression of hope. = And eventually we got down to the declarative core and the logical rues app= lied. There was never the intention of sticking with that core (you c= an't talk very long in it without boring the socks off everyone) but it was= the heart. What 'iepei' (and I would bet a number of other things as= well) does is take away the rule-like behavior of the scraping process.&nb= sp; This may not be a catastrophe, but it is a serious knock on the claim t= o be, in any sense, a logical language.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
= Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 2:00:= 45 PM
Subject: Re: [loj= ban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

Lojban is a language "built on predicate logic", but does that mean that= it is exclusively predicate logic? The way that you talk about lojba= n and logic, John, it sounds like you would also be upset by joi or any of = the other things that aren't explicit logical connectors

On Nov 29, 2010 2:36 PM, "John E Clifford" <<= a rel=3D"nofollow" ymailto=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank= " href=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com">kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:<= br>> Idiomatically, yes; literally, more like what I said. And, as I ha= ve noted,
> idioms are anti-logical in the appropriate sense, since there is no me= chanical
> rule to get them back to there logical form.
>
= >
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonat= han Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> > To: lojban@googlegroups.= com
> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 1:10:39 PM
> Subject: Re= : [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
> >
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:06 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
&g= t;
> But whether 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not thereby dec= ided; it means
> "Yes, innit"
>
>
> No, it means, "Do you agree, a= nd with what intensity do you (dis)agree?"
>
> --
> mu'= o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno b= e denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do
> zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
&g= t;
>
> --
> You received this message because you are = subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this = group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.go= ogle.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>
>
>= ;
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@google= groups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.