Re: [lojban] Re: Lojban and Truth-Conditional Semantics

["John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Well, Richard died young(ish), but others have pursued his efforts in further parts of English.  The fact that there is not a complete Montague (or any other kind,come to that) of Enlish shouldn't discourage us from the much simpler task of getting one for Lojban.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:19 AM, la klaku <jakobnybonissen@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
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.