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

["Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

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.

lojbab
-
Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

--
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.