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

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 06:56:18PM +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 09/01/2011 11:40:
> >And Rosta wrote:
> >>In English, logical scope tends to be ambiguous, at least within
> >>the same clause. So English "not A, B and C" can mean "It is not
> >>the case that each of A,B,C is the case" or "For each x, where x
> >>is one of A,B,C, it is not the case that x is the case".
> >>
> >>Unless it has been fixed by recent BPFK action, Lojban has
> >>*exactly the same ambiguity* with regard to logical scope
> >>between elements that are not explicitly prenexed. (At least
> >>Lojban has the option of prenexing to eradicate ambiguity, but
> >>it is an option almost never used and that if often used would
> >>be received with opprobrium as stylistically objectionable.)
> >
> >I disagree as to the opprobrium. It is precisely where such
> >disambiguation is necessary and desirable that it should be used.
> >Having the mechanism means that when it should be used, it CAN be
> >used.
> >
> >This is precisely the same as Lojban having optional tense and
> >number. The mechanisms are there when the distinction is
> >important, but otherwise can be left to pragmatics.
> 
> Optional tense and number is not the same as optional
> disambiguation, IMO. Optional tense and number is simply a
> question of how much information to include in one's propositions,
> and should be a decision solely for the user, not forced by the
> language design.
> 
> In principle, the principal attraction of a logical language is
> that it should be unambiguous by default, as unambiguous as it
> would be to speak/write predicate logic formulas. 

I agree.  I'm Ok with the default disambiguation being *surprising*,
but I'm not OK with Lojban having logical ambiguities by default.
Semantic ambiguities are another matter, of course.

> Lojban's ambiguities could be (or have been) fixed quite
> straightforwardly by adopting the xorxesian scope rules (and also
> xorlo). Its more enduring problem IMO is the painfulness of
> encoding recurring variables (i.e. argument values that appear in
> multiple places in a proposition); it's so much easier just to
> resort to vagueness and use implicit zo'e. The difficult part of
> designing a logical language is to make it unpainful to use even
> when using its logical capabilities.

Again: please please please explain what you're talking about here
with lots of detailed examples, ideally on a relevant BPFK page.  I
need to know about this stuff, and you're a great resource.  If
it'll make it easier for you, we can do a phone call where you bitch
for a while and I write everything down.

-Robin

-- 
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei".   My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

-- 
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.