Re: [lojban] Predicate logic and childhood.

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

Rob:
[...]
#As I pointed out, the sumti connectives are relatively easy to find uses for.

ok

#> Anyway, it's no longer appropriate to hold up one's hands in horror
#> at this or that feature of Lojban and hope that something will be
#> done about it. If great swathes of Lojban are communicatively
#> useless, then that's just how things are.
#
#But I want to know why the sentence connectives should be made communicatively
#useless. They convey a perfectly meaningful idea. In the case of the English
#sentences we are translating, you can get the cause-and-effect meaning of it
#using the structure xorxes prefers, but you can also convey the logical
#meaning. I would say that neither translation would be exactly equal to the
#English sentence, but that both should be acceptable. Additionally, for
#sentences which are not translated but created entirely in Lojban, I see no
#reason why logic cannot be the basis of the sentence.
#
#The problem with {ko} is only a tangent. I believe {do bazi} would have the
#same truth value, so perhaps use that instead.
#
#People seem to be implying that as soon as there is cause and effect involved,
#you are not allowed to use logical connectives. Not that you can choose not to
#use them in favor of a cause-and-effect statement, but that you just can't use
#them. I have yet to see an answer to why there should not be a choice of
#sentence structure.

I have lost the thread, I'm afraid, and can't reconstruct what are the issues
under debate. Would you be willing to take the trouble to recapitulate?

--And.