Re: Dao De Jing [was Re: Promoting Lojban]

[xod <xod@bway.net>]

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Lin Zhemin wrote:

> Sun, 21 Feb 1999, zo xod(xod@bway.net) cusku di'e
> > {zo'o .i'asai} You claimed that Lojban is limited because it is based on
> > predicate logic. English is not. So can you come up with a sentence that
> > Lojban can say, but English can't?


I actually meant to say the last sentence the other way around.


> 
> What I meant by "limited" is from the meaning of Sapir-Wholf theory,
> that if the language is based on predicate logic, its native speakers'
> scope will be limited by it, making some illogical statement hard for
> them to understand, unless they learn another language or study in
> another culture. And I know Lojban is expressive, while we're all
> strangers in Lojbanistan. :-)   I have no idea of such a sentence. Can
> you find a sentence which one in Russian can say, but can't in English? 


I only know English and a little Lojban.

I think that logic and ambiguity are orthogonal, meaning that all four
combinations of {logical, illogical} and {ambiguous, unambiguous} are
possible. Lojban, although it eliminates sentences which are ambiguous,
still permits sentences which violate logic, like the two-headed cow
example.

Illogical statements are hard for everybody to understand.

"lo nanmu cu ninmu" is valid lojban. No parser will reject it. It follows
the same pattern as "lo nanmu cu xekri". But it's illogical!
(unambigiously so!)



-----
How's my typing? 1 (800) 243-6624