wrote: > What is your view on the bu'a series? Potentially useful? Totally > pointless? I've never used it myself, but I could be missing some > important aspect of Lojban as a logical language. >=20 > mu'o mi'e tijlan >=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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. >=20 >=20 > --=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@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. --Apple-Mail-1-366348269 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Lojban isn't clearly of one order or t= he other, since it treats sets and properties and the like on a par with tr= ee and dogs. There is no particular problem in grammar or vocabulary = to treating properties of predicates and quantification over them. Th= ere are some arguments about the correct way to express a predicate as an a= rgument, but that seems to revolve around just what a predicate is in Lojba= n ontology. All the answers yield grammatical and intelligible result= s, though sometimes different ones. None of them seem particularly st= ilted, but I haven't seen enough cases to get a feel for that.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 24, 2011, at 14:13, Ian Johnson &l= t;blindbravado@gmail.com> = wrote:

I think = bu'a/bu'e/bu'i would be much much much more useful if Lojban were a second = order language, because then we could talk about the existence of predicate= s with desired properties in a non-stilted fashion. As a first order l= anguage, though, with second order mechanisms requiring stilted language, I= don't think bu'a/bu'e/bu'i are especially useful.

mu'o mi'e latros

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

What is your view on the bu'a se= ries? Potentially useful? Totally
pointless? I've never used it myself, = but I could be missing some
important aspect of Lojban as a logical language.

mu'o mi'e tijlan
--
You received this message because you a= re 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, v= isit 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@googlegroups.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/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--Apple-Mail-1-366348269--