Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The syntax of Lojban doesn't allow any transformation, since it is entirely static (whether PEG or YACC).  So I suppose that  you mean that  {re da lo mamta be da} is not a term in Lojban.  

I mean that the logical form of  "lo mamta be re da cu cliva" is not as obvious from the syntactic form as the logical form of, on the one hand:

(1a) lo poi'i re da zo'u ke'a mamta da cu cliva

(1b) xxx poi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da  cu cliva

(1c) zo'e noi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da cu cliva

and on the other hand:

(2a) re da zo'u lo poi'i ke'a mamta da cu cliva

(2b) re da zo'u xxx poi ke'a mamta da  cu cliva

(2c) re da zo'u zo'e noi ke'a mamta da cu cliva

We need to state explicitly in the rules for interpreting the language that "lo mamta be re da cu cliva" corresponds to the 1's and not to the 2's. To anyone familiar with FOPL, the rules for interpreting the 1's  and 2's are more obvious and straightforward just from the syntactic form in a way that they are not so obvious in the condensed form.

 

The whole point of much of the deviation of Lojban from logical notation is to make an ergonomic (yuck, ptui!) language while keeping a connection to the logic.  Why deliberately go after the antiergonomic "standard form" when you have a good representation already,  

The sumti-tail form requires fronting the argument place for the variable bound by "lo". It is not always possible or convenient to do that. For example:

  lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki

  xxx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki

  zo'e noi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki

  "That which I think John knows is possible." 

 

There are problems with Lojban's representations of standard form, but the solution is to find better ergonomic treatments, not to give up and go back to the unusable originals.

If you think anyone is suggesting giving up on the ergonomic forms, you are misreading what this thread is all about. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.