[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language)



John E Clifford, On 06/01/2011 20:43:
Efforts along this line tend to involve and idealized
representational language, almost all of which end up looking a lot like first
order predicate logic, meaning that the crucial step in the process from
Lojban
form to meaning would be -- with a few caveats -- a snap.

Hopefully it would be a snap, but it's these rules that the formal
definition/specification of the language requires, and not the formal grammar
(save for whichever bits of the formal grammar are necessary for the
form--meaning correspondence rules). Regarding the question of whether it would
indeed be a snap, the requisite rules would in most cases need to be invented,
so there'd be a political difficulty at least as much as a linguistic one.

**I'm not following here.  What is the political difficulty in given obvious
rules for untangled conjoined terms or predicates or even blobs like briditail.
There are some less than obvious places, to be sure, but doing the first bit is
already more than we can do -- even by hand -- for any other language.

Until Robin assumed his dictatorial powers recently, it was politically impossible to get any change implemented.
--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.