Re: [lojban] application to join the LLG

["'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>]

No, Quine is the logician of that era I did NOT know, though I studied with several of his students, most notably for present purposes Goodman and Leonard (the English language version of mereology).  (Missing Quine may not have been a mistake, since he did once write a paper that gave a brilliant exposition and defense of a position which tied in nicely with his supposed nominalism but claimed -- in the paper and ever after -- that the had therein refuted the position completely.) 

I have looked at guskant's piece with mixed feelings.  It does a good job at pointing out how much of xorlo is still in limbo of one sort and another and of bringing up other problems.  The suggested solutions are less admirable, though they may work.  The fact that the paper often uses (a radically non-standard) Lojban as a metalanguage for Lojban presents a number of problems over and above the usual ones with self-metalanguages.  By and large, the problems are ones best left to the ultimate formal language which Lojban is to mirror rather than trying to solve them in Lojban itself.  In particular, the individual-set (or whatever you want to call them)-mass division is not important for the language and the mistreatment of collectivity-distributivity in the language (though not, presumably in the logic) continues.  I may change these judgments if I get around to a detailed study, but that is not likely soon, as getting things right seems more important than understanding the present situation or someone else's band-aids.

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 11:20 AM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

On 8/29/2014 7:53 AM, guskant wrote:
> I would like to apply to join the LLG, only for making my commentary be
> official:
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=gadri:+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logical+point+of+view
>
> Whether my application is accepted or not, I still want LLG to consider
> inserting the commentary in the next version of CLL. This commentary
> contains a theoretical basis of Lojban, and should be essential for the
> Book.

Has John Clifford (pc) looked at this?  As the more-or-less official
logician for the Loglan/Lojban projects for a couple of decades if not
more, any mention of "logic" in connection with Lojban automatically
makes me want to defer to him.  (Others including you might be
qualified, but pc certainly is.)

Since I notice you mention Quine below, IIRC, pc knew Quine personally
and may have discussed Lojban with him.

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.