1. Because I get tired of talking about "Loglan = and/or Lojban (and/or LoCCan3)" 2.Because I think that Lojban ut nunc= has some serious problems that are pretty regularly avoided (usually, by r= unning off on tangents about what a word means or whether it fits in this s= lot or...) and "Logjam" is a mildly amusing (to me, anyhow) way or indicati= ng that. The problems often go back to Loglan, so the extended refere= nce is appropriate. 3. Oh, I've already said that I think it is funny. = ;

From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Se= nt: Mon, November 29, 2010 3:14:02 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other= -centric-.ui conversation

Why do you keep reffering to Lojban as Logjam?

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM, John E Clifford= <kali9putra@y= ahoo.com> wrote:

Having spent thirty five years adapting Logjam and logic to more or le= ss coincide -- working on extensions of logic as well as of Logjam, I= think it fair to say that you are talking through a nether orifice. = I remember the fights I had to do to get 'joi' in (well, pre-'joi' since th= is was back in Loglan). Won that one eventually, lost a lot of others= -- like trying to organize UI and kin into something resembling logical st= ructures (I won't even talk about the semantic mishmash there). The "= built on" line used to mean that logical transformation were transparent (o= r, 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 a= n exhortation or a promise or an expression of hope. And eventually w= e got down to the declarative core and the logical rues applied. There was never the intention of sticking with that core (y= ou can'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 thing= s as well) does is take away the rule-like behavior of the scraping process= . This may not be a catastrophe, but it is a serious knock on the cla= im to be, in any sense, a logical language.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
<= span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 29, 20= 10 2:00:45 PM=20

Subject:= Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
<= /div>

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 hav= e 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= :
>
> But whether 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not ther= eby decided; it means
> "Yes, innit"
>
>
> No, it means, "Do you agree, an= d with what intensity do you (dis)agree?"
>
> --
> mu'o= mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be= 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://g= roups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
> <= br>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscri= bed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, sen= d email to lojban@googlegroup= s.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 G= oogle Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

=20

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at htt= p://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
mu'o mi'e .= aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.= luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D = )

--
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.