On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:Is there a brivla for logical or modal necessity?
> JCB had at least one course in Logic but in a school that did not favor modal
> logic at all. I don't know how well he did in even that one (Lojbab does not
> improve the logic input much). But in 56 years, the efforts to get necessity
> operators in have come to naught -- though eventually we got something like a
> necessity predicate,
>
If I may confess something, I have been studying Lojban on and off for
years, and every time I get into a learning groove I encounter some
facet of the language that strikes me as so bizarre or absurd that it
stops me in my tracks. The lack of a necessity operator and the
questionable status of {ka'e} make the current situation no exception.
I had absolutely no intention of suggesting reforms or additions
because although nearly aspect of the language screams for them, the
fact of the matter is that reform is not in the cards and the
language's foundation is pretty much set in stone. However here I
think that I will simply use {ne'e} when I need it, and possibly
{ci'a} too until I convince myself that {ka'e} does what xorxes claims
it does. I understand there is an experimental cmavo process, but I
am going to short-circuit it. Waiting 56 years for "necessarily" is
outrageous.
mu'o mi'e .maik.
--
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.