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

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6 January 2011 03:02, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrong on both counts.

Where:

A = "lojban is fully defined."
B = "lojban is complete."
C = "lojban is a functioning language."

"lojban is not a fully defined, complete and functioning language" = "lojban is not A, B, and C." = "lojban is not (A, B, and C)." = {.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau je mulno je tolpo'u bangu}

"lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is not a functioning language." = "lojban is (not A) or (not B) or (not C)." = {.i la.lojban. na mulno smugau gi'a na mulno gi'a na tolpo'u bangu}

If A = "lojban is fully defined." then "lojban is not A" means "lojban is not "lojban is fully defined."." Decide what A, B and C mean.

In any case, this is what I meant:
"It is not true that lojban is fully defined and that lojban is complete and that lojban is a functioning language."

That *must* be equivalent to:

"lojban is not fully defined, or lojban is not complete, or lojban is not a functioning language."

I think it does, but I am not proficient enough to translate it, so we're stuck on assuming.

Regardless, what you meant is not what you said. Something that is easy to do in English, but rather difficult in Lojban.

Waiter: Do you want cream of sugar in your coffee?

Lojbanist: Yes.

-- 
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.