[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo
Lindar, On 15/04/2010 07:43:
1. And, despite all your complaining about how Lojban fails as a
logical language and how everything is absolutely wrong, you failed
to:
a. Explain in what way it has failed.
b. Suggest what to do next.
I wasn't complaining; I was helpfully pointing out certain useful truths. Furthermore, I have explained my points -- briefly in the 2010 discussions, because they're not that germane to the main topic (of Robin's programme for the BPFK), and ad nauseam for ten to fifteen years of earlier Lojban history.
A short recap:
The specification ('declaration', 'prescription') of Lojban rules is very incomplete, with regard to rules mapping forms to meaning, i.e. to rules that specify what stuff means, because the designers of the language made a start in CLL, then baselined it and intended to leave it to usage to build that part of the language. The result is the quondam torrents of "what does X mean" discussions (NB where X is ambiguous, not merely vague), where there simply was no official answer. What can be done about this is to follow Robin's initiative, and let the BPFK declare new official answers where there formerly were none. That should see Lojban complete and meeting its users' requirements. If new holes are found in the future, the BPFK can plug them when they're found.
The other point has to do with logical-languagehood (which is maybe where you got the idea that "everything is absolutely wrong"). The key requirement of what I think we would generally expect a logical language to be is that it should encode predicate--argument structure in a way that is (a) unambiguous, (b) compatible with human cognitive capabilities, (c) not significantly less concise than natural languages. (a) is easy to achieve (and Lojban achieves it). (c) is very difficult to achieve, and Lojban fails it (as you can see by writing out in predicate-logic form what you want to say, and optionally then translating it into Lojban). As for (b), it's a fascinating question, and we don't yet know what's compatible with human cognitive capabilities, but I do think Lojban's "da xi PA" method fairly clearly fails by placing excessive demands on short-term memory. As for what to do next about all this, I've already said that I think it would require starting from scratch to cr
eate Logban3. While such a project would be within the overall scope of the 'Logban' (Loglan/Lojban) project, I think it's important not to confuse Lojban and Logban3, and not to mix up discussion of one with discussion of the other. I'm sure the main Lojban list is not the best place to discuss Logban3. What *is* relevant to discussion on Lojban list is the simple recognition that because Lojban fails goals (b) and (c) of logical-languagehood, it is unreasonable to insist on logical-languagehood being a continuing Lojban design goal in the specification of the the mission of the BPFK.
2. zo'e != lo. I have no idea where you folks got the idea, but AFAIK
"zo'e" is not "lo broda" or anything like that, it is simply an
unspecified sumti, and therefore we don't need a new sumti "zo'e'e" or
any such thing. It's not a particular unspecified thing, it isn't a
specific unspecified thing, and it's not a thing which really is or
isn't or is called an unspecified thing, it's just an unspecified
sumti.
"zo'e'e" would be a KOhA pointing to a specific thing. There is currently no such KOhA. Communicatively you can manage without it by using "le du" instead. The rationale for "zo'e'e" was in the context of the suggested formal periphrastic definitions of gadri in terms of KOhA NOI constructions.
--And.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.