Re: Binary Language

["thinkit41" <thinkit8@lycos.com>]

Ok, I fixed a lot of logical inconsistencies (leave it to a lojban 
group to point nearly all of them out--thanks) and typos.


--- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote:
> <Natural languages are based upon the human vocal capabilities, 
whereas this 
> is based upon binary.  It is expected that this main difference 
will reveal 
> how our vocalization limits have limited our range of thought.>
> 
> This makes no sense -- even ignoring the lack of an explanation of 
what 
> 'based on binary" means.  Any human expression can be binarized and 
every 
> binary expression can be vocalized, each in a number of quite 
trivial ways.  
> So this does not reflect a relevant difference unless -- and until -
- we have 
> some nontrivial difference pointed out.  I didn't see that in the 
remainder 
> of this short sketch.
> 
> <The sentence is the basic unit of the language.  Everything must 
be 
> contained in sentences.  It consists of a truth table, 2 arguments, 
an 
> operation, and 0 or more sentence tags.  The sentence tags serve to 
identify 
> an argument that operates on the sentence itself.>
> 
> Huh?  Sentence consists of  1) a truth table -- of what?  typically 
truth 
> tables are for  sets of sentences, so this sounds like an infinite 
regress -- 
> each sentence has a truth table for a set of sentences which each 
have a 
> truth table for....  Alternatively, a truth table for a single 
sentence just 
> has two values (or whatever the basic range is). 2) two arguments 
> (names/pronouns?)  3) an operation -- on what? 4)sentence tags that 
identify 
> and argument that operates on the sentence itself -- again 
terminological 
> problems: arguments typically are not things that operate on 
setences or 
> anything else, rather they are what are operated on.  
> Is this the order in which the components of a sentence occur or 
can the 
> pieces be jumbled toether hoggledy-piggledy?

Ok I tried to clarify the points a bit better.  The order is given in 
the sentence structure below (and is the same).

> <All sentences belong to a group for purposes of a truth table.  
This gives 
> all the combinations of true and false of the following sentences.>
> Heres is that problem come in -- since each sentence contains a 
truth table 
> and each sentence is in agroup for purposes of some truth table 
which deals 
> with the following sentences, where is the  truth table that 
actually deals 
> with what?  
> I take it that this is an attempt to deal with the problem that 
Lojban (and 
> usual logical notation) does not do expeditiously, namely 
connections among 
> more that two sentences, but the statement here is not clear enough 
to see 
> whether it is useful. I would have expected that sentences per se 
did not 
> have truth tables as essential parts but sentence groups (?
paragraphs?) did: 
> essentially the list of values for the appropriate combination of 
the 
> sentences in the group in the usual order).
> <An idea is the basic word of the language.  They are divided into 
0, 1, 2 
> with focus 1, and 2 with focus 2 argument ideas, as well as base 
and custom.  
> 0 argument ideas are useful for expressing attitudes 
(interjections), such as 
> "ARGH".  1 argument ideas are for intransitive verbs, descriptions 
("is"), or 
> identification ("is a").  2 argument ideas are for transitive 
verbs.  The 
> focus must be set to 1 for the rightmost idea in a sentence op.>
> 
> Ideas ain't words and conversely, though I think the plan here is 
for a very 
> tight relation between "basic ideas" and "basic words" (whether the 
first 
> notion really makes absolute sense, it can be used relative to a 
aprticular 
> system; the second of course is just gismu, I suppose).  The next 
sentence is 
> grammatically obscure in one place but later examples explain it: 
there are 
> four kinds of ideas, depending on adicity first (0, 1, and 2 
places) and, in 
> the case of 2, on whether the "subject" is the first or second 
term.  There 
> are also basic and derived words (I think "idea" is essentially 
> "predicates", and I have interpreted "base" and "custom" ).   
> Can ever idea be reduced to either a medadic, monadic or dyadic 
relation?  
> How do we partitiion up "give"?  And so on?

Give is simple, the subject (arg1) is the giver, and the object 
(arg2) is the object given.  A sentence tag defines the recipient.  
Are there any really ternary verbs in English?  You only get things 
like "give me the object" because we are shortening from "give the 
object to me".

> <An operator is one or more idea words.  In this list, the words 
modify the 
> word to their right.  The rightmost idea word will always define 
the 
> appropriate number and description of the arguments to be used.  
Parentheses 
> can be used to group items together, but the right modifying rule 
remains. >
> 
> Is this the same as the "operation" mentioned earlier?  Apparently 
not 
> exactly for -- as near as I can make out -- that might be 
an "idea,"  whereas 
> operators are strings of ideas: read "gismu" and "tanru", 
apparently -- with 
> Lojban rules. 
> Why are there two arguments in every sentence is some operations 
are medadic 
> and some monadic (what are the extra arguments?  Come to that, what 
are 
> arguments altogether?)

The arguments must have the placeholder "not in operation", as 
explained in the structure below.  As for lojban, an operation is 
almost exactly like a selbri.  An idea (which I renamed concept), is 
a lot like a gismu or lujvo.

> <The amount and location of parentheses are coded into binary using 
an 
> algorithm to be determined>
> For instance, by putting the code for left paren and righ parent 
before and 
> after the codes for the operators?
> <A reference is the basic way of referring to something more than 
once.  It 
> first must be assigned an ID with a backcount to count arguments 
backwards in 
> order to point to a previous argumnet.  All arguments count when 
looking 
> backwards...thus it can be assumed that a sentence has 2 arguments 
plus 2 for 
> every tag.  
> 
> After, it can be used by refering to the ID.  In this way, the 
reference 
> serves as both the pronoun (he, she, it), and the name.>
> 
> Does this mean that when we come to refer to the same thing again, 
it gets an 
> ID that consists of the backcount to its previous occurrence?    If 
so, then 
> how is it referred to the third time, when the count will 
presumably be 
> different?  So, that is probably not what the ID is: How does it 
get its 
> initial reference?  If this is simple enough, why not use it as you 
say as 
> both pronoun and name (repetition is also anaphora)?
> If we need a backcount, what do we do with subordinate references 
within 
> references or are they eliminated somehow?  How id "John's mother" 
dealt 
> with, in other words?

I changed it to indicate that intial assignment involves both a 
backcount and an ID.

> Why does a tag need two arguments (what are tags anyhow? no 
examples so far).

Because tags involve operations, and all operations have two argument 
(even if some are just a placeholder).

> The final muck (base conventions undefined -- I take it that some 
of you can 
> recognize familiar patterns here) does not answer any of these 
questions, 
> alas.

I listed the conventions, so perhaps the muck will have some meaning 
now.