Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

Having spent thirty five years adapting Logjam and logic to more or less coincide -- working on extensions of logic as well as of Logjam, I think it fair to say that you are talking through a nether orifice. I remember the fights I had to do to get 'joi' in (well, pre-'joi' since this was back in Loglan). Won that one eventually, lost a lot of others -- like trying to organize UI and kin into something resembling logical structures (I won't even talk about the semantic mishmash there). The "built on" line used to mean that logical transformation were transparent (or, at least, rule governed starting with the surface structure). That typically involved scraping away a lot of stuff, but, again, the scraping was rule governed: a question had certain marks to identify it, similarly an exhortation or a promise or an _expression_ of hope. And eventually we got down to the declarative core and the logical rues applied. There was never the intention of sticking with that core (you can't talk very long in it without boring the socks off everyone) but it was the heart. What 'iepei' (and I would bet a number of other things as well) does is take away the rule-like behavior of the scraping process. This may not be a catastrophe, but it is a serious knock on the claim to be, in any sense, a logical language.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 2:00:45 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation

Lojban is a language "built on predicate logic", but does that mean that it is exclusively predicate logic? The way that you talk about lojban and logic, John, it sounds like you would also be upset by joi or any of the other things that aren't explicit logical connectors

On Nov 29, 2010 2:36 PM, "John E Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Idiomatically, yes; literally, more like what I said. And, as I have noted,
> idioms are anti-logical in the appropriate sense, since there is no mechanical
> rule to get them back to there logical form.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 1:10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] Time for the perenial other-centric-.ui conversation
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:06 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But whether 'iepei' is a legitimate question is not thereby decided; it means
> "Yes, innit"
>
>
> No, it means, "Do you agree, and with what intensity do you (dis)agree?"
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do
> zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

--
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.