On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:55:34 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:
la .trans. cu cusku di'e
> I would very much like to read Loglan 2 Chapter 8 to learn more, but I
> have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from this is
> that the definition of le is essentially:
>
> ∃X: P(X) and if ∃Y: P(Y) then Y=X, with the proviso C(X) & C(Y).
>
> P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context of
> conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the the
> missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs.
This is more or less what I suggested, but your formula does not account
for plurals (though you did use capital letters for your variables). To
make it work for plurals, you need to use plural variables and replace
the identity relation with the among relation in your formula.
Seems reasonable enough. ki'e
In any case, if that is what {le} means, then how does it differ from
{lo}, for which the same definition would also make sense?
First, let me say that JCB doesn't appear to take any account of veridicality. In Loglan, `lo` is the mass descriptor. So I am guessing this is a LeChevalier invention. Is that true? It would be interesting to know JCB's thoughts on it.
In any case, I believe the answer to your question is simply to remove the contextual proviso. By my reading of the CLL that seems to be the idea.