[lojban] Re: Lojban and Truth-Conditional Semantics

[la klaku <jakobnybonissen@gmail.com>]

On 14 Nov., 22:43, maikxlx <maik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Martin Bays <mb...@sdf.org> wrote:
> > There have been a few attempts to do it in practice - I know of Nick
> > Nicholas' Prolog semantic analyser
> >http://www.lojban.org/files/software/analyser
> > , Rob Speer and Catherine Havasi's Jimpe
> >http://web.mit.edu/rspeer/www/research/jimpe.tar.gz
> > . I haven't managed to get either to run, due to bitrot, but they're
> > interesting anyway. I also have a WIP of my own along similar lines,
> > taking a more completionist tack, which I may release one day (I got
> > stuck on handling gadri).
>
> I would like to see whatever you have whenever you feel comfortable sharing
> it.  I have been working on my own loglangs for a while, but I don't seem
> to be getting anywhere lately, and I have little to date to show for it, so
> I think I am going to spend more time studying the ongoing attempts to
> formalize and specify Lojban as those attempts unfold in this community.
>
> > However, there are plenty of hurdles in the way of completion of such
> > a project.
>
> Yes there are.  While Lojban semantics may, or may not, ever have a
> complete, agreed-upon formalization, having gone back over the close-scope
> {zo'e} thread recently, I do think there is slow-but-steady progress in the
> form of insight being gained.  I think it's especially promising that
> professional research is increasingly being studied and applied to Lojban
> by people like you and Xorxes and others.  Carlson and Chiercha are new to
> me, but Montague I have been aware of for a while.
>
>
>
> > But basically, I totally agree that developing a model-theoretic formal
> > semantics is (a) essentially doable, and (b) the best way to specify
> > this currently woefully underspecified language.
>
> I agree, but getting everything to work together will probably take a long,
> long time.  I suspect that ultimately something with the rigor of
> Montague's program, which was conceived to discover a universal grammar,
> but is extremely formal and only ever managed to cover a small fragment of
> English, is going to be needed to formalize a whole loglang. That's a
> thought to give one pause!
>
> > Martin
>
> -Mike

-- 
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.