Re: thoughts on numerical language

[thinkit8@lycos.com]

--- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/3/2001 5:48:15 PM Central Standard Time, 
> thinkit8@l... writes:
> 
> 
> > anyway, i was saying you can just represent it as "A gives B", 
with 
> > side tag "with recipient".  Or "A gives to B", with side 
> > tag "involving object".  English is pretty much binary, with 
> > prepositional side tags.  It just turns out the 5 tags in lojban 
> > makes things convenient and quick.
> > 
> 
> OK.  I now get one idea of what "numerical language" means.  From 
earlier 
> stuff I get the idea that part of it is to have all vocabulary be 
numbers (? 
> at least I think that is what I get).  What else is involved?  Can 
the 
> fundamentals of the scheme be laid out in some clear but 
reelatively compact 
> way?  Would you do that (one remembers that you still haven't 
explained what 
> is wrong with Lojban by you)?

This has little to do with my issues with lojban.  It's a totally 
different approach.  I intend to follow this through and put 
together a basic explanation of the goals and layout of the system.  
The best summary I can give was one that was suggested on this list, 
as I remember.  In computers, you compile a source code to machine 
language.  I'm thinking of compiling a normal languague to "machine 
code".  Thus I am defining this machine code.