On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:I believe what he means is this:
> I'm confused. Could you define precisely what makes something "logical".
> It seems like I keep hearing things of the form "you're trying to do X and
> that's not logical". But what exactly do you mean by that? If I use
> something other than a bridi to express a relationship, does that
> automatically mean that it's not logical? Do all relationships HAVE to be
> made of bridi? Who says?
In Lojban, we can express propositions through a structure based on
predicate logic. That structure is the bridi. We also have structures
in the language that are not derived from any type of formal logic,
and are in that sense not "logical."
John Clifford's argument (with which I basically am in agreement) is
that, to be in keeping with the stated design principles underlying
Lojban (and inherited from and in this instance I believe more
strongly present in Loglan), non-logical structures cannot be used to
express propositions.
Applying this to the matter at hand, the following piece I believe to
be uncontroversial: ".ui" has no truth value, and so cannot be wrong,
even though it can be said by an unhappy person and means an
_expression_ of happiness. Similarly, ".uidai" does not actually imply
the proposition that somebody other than the speaker is happy, even
though it would not be said sincerely by a speaker who does not feel
that they are empathizing with somebody happy. This is because neither
one is propositional. This is also why, although you can disagree with
somebody else's bridi and negate it with a simple "na go'i," there is
no way to negate another person's UI-expressions - though you can
express your own opinions about their emotional state, either as
assertions (".uicai broda" ".i do na gleki") or, possibly, by
empathizing with the emotion you perceive behind their apparently
insincere _expression_ (".uicai broda" ".uinaidai").
However, I can see no easy way to define "da'ai" such that it does not
contain anything propositional, because the speaker is commenting on
observations they have made which can themselves be incorrect - that
is, it is *inherently* possible to say ".uida'ai" and be wrong. (I
gather others - namely the proponents of "da'ai" - probably disagree
here; I suspect John does not.)
As regards "pei," I may be mistaken but I believe John is of the
opinion that answers to questions are always propositional and thus
there is no way to answer a "pei" question that shouldn't be a bridi.
Here some disagree with the general principle about questions; it
happens that I do not. However, I do disagree with the conclusion -
"pei" is not IMO a question in some deep formal sense (though we call
it one due to the fuzzy semantics of the English word "question"), but
a request; it asks the listener to respond with an _expression_ that
lacks propositional force, and so asks for information only
pragmatically. In this way, it does not IMO attempt anything of the
sort Lojban insists on handling logically, and so the fact that it is
non-logical in nature is entirely consistent with Lojban's heritage.
- mi'e .kreig.
--
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.