From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARCMnLvxBBoEr1879g@googlegroups.com Tue Jul 26 07:24:34 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QliYe-00060l-8a; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:33 -0700 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11sf754243gwb.16 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=cfSNexy6hxSe1VMupGtpEe6fgtvi4WVPnc9NjeQRwz8=; b=Xo7e9R1NM2fkVfRCxMU7kJALkbh7rzP7E/cO08I0GdUOzmwj6KphSJdd2VffBR1KZo w4tRo8O3HW+TNFX7z2rs4j2xpgHAcbQbdTin9if9XJZ3eWsQaRHuLZdLCuR22rr+4/hr rIw+ebIq89ae44XFt9dybKcmJZu+JJoidXSdc= Received: by 10.101.26.3 with SMTP id d3mr665647anj.5.1311690252942; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.83.10 with SMTP id k10ls2393078anl.4.gmail; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.44.13 with SMTP id w13mr507532anj.28.1311690251389; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.44.13 with SMTP id w13mr507530anj.28.1311690251336; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f45.google.com (mail-yi0-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n19si770100ani.0.2011.07.26.07.24.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.45; Received: by mail-yi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 25so338122yia.32 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.15.138 with SMTP id k10mr5314636faa.101.1311690251015; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.74.194 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87BB9A86-430F-4F64-9CD4-D8A5BD33B69A@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:24:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] bu'a From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517478fec7797ed04a8f9afc7 --001517478fec7797ed04a8f9afc7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Erm, poor phrasing; I meant that there is no easy way to get between those three things. .u'u .i mu'o mi'e latros On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Ian Johnson wrote: > Quantification over predicates was implemented in a horrifyingly hackish > way. This alone is a problem, in my opinion. There is also, at least not in > the main body of the language, an easy way to go from predicate-as-function > (selbri) to predicate-as-concrete-object (typical sumti) to > predicate-as-abstract-object. > > Lojban is definitely based on FOPL, though, not SOPL, and not a bizarre > hybrid of the two. > > mu'o mi'e latros > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM, John E. Clifford wrote: > >> Lojban isn't clearly of one order or the other, since it treats sets and >> properties and the like on a par with tree and dogs. There is no particular >> problem in grammar or vocabulary to treating properties of predicates and >> quantification over them. There are some arguments about the correct way to >> express a predicate as an argument, but that seems to revolve around just >> what a predicate is in Lojban ontology. All the answers yield grammatical >> and intelligible results, though sometimes different ones. None of them >> seem particularly stilted, 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 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 >> predicates with desired properties in a non-stilted fashion. As a first >> order language, 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 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. >>> >>> mu'o mi'e tijlan >>> >>> -- >>> 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=en. >>> >>> >> -- >> 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=en. >> >> -- >> 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=en. >> > > -- 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=en. --001517478fec7797ed04a8f9afc7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Erm, poor phrasing; I meant that there is no easy way to get between those = three things.

.u'u .i mu'o mi'e latros

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.c= om> wrote:
Quantification over predicates was implemen= ted in a horrifyingly hackish way. This alone is a problem, in my opinion. = There is also, at least not in the main body of the language, an easy way t= o go from predicate-as-function (selbri) to predicate-as-concrete-object (t= ypical sumti) to predicate-as-abstract-object.

Lojban is definitely based on FOPL, though, not SOPL, and not a bizarre= hybrid of the two.

mu'o mi'e latros
<= br>
On Su= n, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com= > wrote:
Lojban isn'= ;t clearly of one order or the other, since it treats sets and properties a= nd the like on a par with tree and dogs. =A0There is no particular problem = in grammar or vocabulary to treating properties of predicates and quantific= ation over them. =A0There are some arguments about the correct way to expre= ss a predicate as an argument, but that seems to revolve around just what a= predicate is in Lojban ontology. =A0All the answers yield grammatical and = intelligible results, though sometimes different ones. =A0None of them seem= particularly stilted, but I haven't seen enough cases to get a feel fo= r that.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 24, 20= 11, at 14:13, Ian Johnson <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 t= he existence of predicates with desired properties in a non-stilted fashion= . As=A0a first order language, though, with second order mechanisms requiri= ng stilted language, I don't think bu'a/bu'e/bu'i are espec= ially useful.
=A0
mu'o mi'e latros
=A0
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.c= om> wrote:
What is your view on the bu'a ser= ies? Potentially useful? Totally
pointless? I've never used it mysel= f, but I could be missing some
important aspect of Lojban as a logical language.

mu'o mi'e = tijlan

--
You received this message becau= se 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/= lojban?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.


--
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.
--001517478fec7797ed04a8f9afc7--