From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCl0ZjpBBoEM3SCAQ@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 12:40:25 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PawdB-0006wb-5i; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:25 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf18332922wwb.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nxqNKCLDd+WwaHLKRFgYMoxw1DvZprJUs7lAkBpeKWI=; b=pbbN222y1BQu+dCThSEB2H7AaAPBbb/08qE8xAhfF6ZJx55u2BFAKHYA1i7z2tNPhA NVP39BPTGHWv000YpnMLqAfosux3usoirCA7ZXzpRUxBDczmYYWFa0sNv5qByP55XGpn 2UN7rXhvaZYLE6L3UVYq69RpZ3BzMTQpEUcTg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vtbxvDCOnkV5wZ8+4coNWuP0FU2reiIhO7H5bkx+rSHRvVNPbE8D9IPWEHk1F4GAGz DRvvgBqqivOBRPUtbNINLLY2SPbTq936/rnjrtUs5FaWfTpzsQFPAwkroVyCvdW4p64H SktCyV/s8yg7v9pNA4ywDkj8h4BTxh2E0LZeY= Received: by 10.216.169.19 with SMTP id m19mr3396320wel.7.1294346405759; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:05 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.38.211 with SMTP id c19ls4638861wbe.1.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.127.136 with SMTP id g8mr827898wbs.21.1294346404823; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.127.136 with SMTP id g8mr827897wbs.21.1294346404804; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f178.google.com (mail-wy0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k2si3820055wbc.3.2011.01.06.12.40.03; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.178; Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so17280744wyb.9 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.155.75 with SMTP id r11mr14855233wbw.3.1294346403495; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q18sm17096878wbe.11.2011.01.06.12.40.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:40:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D2628A0.8060505@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 20:40:00 +0000 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> <4D25D915.9080305@lojban.org> <4D25F6F2.7050205@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ian Johnson, On 06/01/2011 19:35: > ...What? You're trying to distinguish between: > ~(A(x) ^ B(x) ^ C(x)) > and > ~A(x) ^ ~B(x) ^ ~C(x) > > Lojban has plenty of ways to do this. No, the point is firstly that the difference is merely one of scope, and se= condly that Lojban too has (or perhaps merely had) the ambiguity that Lojba= b was reproaching English for having. The point was not that Lojban (or Eng= lish) has no way of disambiguating. --And. Here's one: > > naku ko'a broda gi'e brode gi'e brodi > vs. > ko'a na broda gi'enai brode gi'enai brodi > > These are completely different sentences. On the other hand, if you actua= lly go through and try to say the same thing in English, you actually wind = up with virtually identical sentences: > > It is not the case that ko'a X and Y and Z > vs. > ko'a doesn't X and doesn't Y and doesn't Z. > > "It is not the case that" is stylistically horrible, however, which is wh= y classes on logic taught in English spend probably an entire week on the c= oncept of a "useful negation" and thus introducing the De Morgan laws, what= happens to quantifiers when a statement is negated, etc. > > So the issue is really not with English, it's with idiomatic English. You= can more or less remove ambiguity in "rigid" contexts like these, but when= you try to also add in flavor and life to your English (such as in "X is f= ar from being A, B, and C", which incidentally I read as ~(A(x) ^ B(x) ^ C(= x)), as a counterexample to someone who was saying any native English speak= er would read it the other way), it becomes extremely hard to preserve the = lack of ambiguity. Lojban makes this a hell of a lot easier; UI alone is a = tremendous help. > > Also, for what it's worth, I've used prenexes quite a bit, and don't cons= ider them especially hard to read. Hell, one of {me'ei}'s dominant uses is = {ro me'ei bu'a zo'u}. > > mu'o mi'e .latros. > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:08 AM, And Rosta > wrote: > > Robert LeChevalier, On 06/01/2011 15:00: > > Ivo Doko wrote: > > Wow, you guys need to learn your logic. Let's do it properly: > > A =3D "lojban is fully defined." > B =3D "lojban is complete." > C =3D "lojban is a functioning language." > > "lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning lang= uage" can be written as: > > > Not it can't. Your summary sentence is NOT > =C2=AC(A =E2=88=A7 B =E2=88=A7 C) > > The closest English can come to that is > "It is not the case that lojban is fully defined, and that lojban= is complete, and that lojban is a functioning language." and even that is = potentially ambiguous in several ways, because the words themselves are amb= iguous given differing contexts. (for example, "Lojban is complete" and "Lo= jban is a complete language" are not necessarily identical in meaning.) > > Your summary sentence uses "not" as a contrary rather than contra= dictory negation, and combines the three independent logical terms into a s= ingle complex modifier of the word "language". It thus is NOT the same as t= he three separate sentences, logically ANDes and the whole negated. > > Lojban makes the differences extremely clear. English obviously d= oes not. > > > In English, logical scope tends to be ambiguous, at least within the = same clause. So English "not A, B and C" can mean "It is not the case that = each of A,B,C is the case" or "For each x, where x is one of A,B,C, it is n= ot the case that x is the case". > > Unless it has been fixed by recent BPFK action, Lojban has *exactly t= he same ambiguity* with regard to logical scope between elements that are n= ot explicitly prenexed. (At least Lojban has the option of prenexing to era= dicate ambiguity, but it is an option almost never used and that if often u= sed would be received with opprobrium as stylistically objectionable.) > > --And. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr= oups "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@goog= legroups.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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. --=20 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/lojban= ?hl=3Den.