Re: [lojban] RE:Trivalent Logics

[pycyn@aol.com]

I'm not sure whether there is anything readable about three-valued (or any 
more-than-two-valued) logic -- I have trouble with most of them and they're 
part of my job  (but I have a strong bivalent prejudice, too).  Most books on 
the topic or on Philosophy of Logic or Non-Standard (Deviant) Logics quickly 
get off into either constructing a calculus for the notion or trying to make 
sense (or show you can't make sense) of the third (and sometimes of the first 
two as well) truth values.
In Aymara (as I understand it from the text), the point is less about truth 
than about certainty and commitment. So the three positions are roughly 
thoroughly committed to, thoroughly committed against, and uncommitted 
(leaving the notion of commitment  vague).  Different functors indicate 
different kinds of commitment depending upon the basic situation, the 
commitment to the unmarked claim.  If I am committed to p, then I am 
committed to necessarily p, but if I am not committed to p (either 
uncommitted or committed against) the I am committed against necessarily p.  
And so on through all the conectives.  
As a tool, this could make for finer distinctions in the commitment 
categories of lb, starting with making the category itself much clearer.