Well, I've already said several times that I don't understand what this thread is about, so I,ll take that part as true. But denying you are giving up on ergonomicity while presenting several "improvements" in Lojban which clearly -- and, indeed, boastfully -- bring back features that the drive for a more ergonomic form got rid of seems perverse. The apparent problem is that you do not know the rules for getting logical forms from linguistic ones. This is not surprising since Logjam has always neglected this issue in favor of the intermediate one of getting to monoparsing, from which product the move to logical form was thought to be easier. You seem tobe about rewriting things directly in Lojban (well, something descended from Lojban anyhow) rather than in the parses. This may at some point be needed, but it seems a move best left til after other, more natural and traditional moves have been exhausted. The fact that some of your suggestions appear to be clearly wrong even on your own terms adds to the difficulty in figuring out what this bread is about. The difference between the 1s and the 2s is just using and not using the minimum scope rule (which has, admittedly, a number of exception clauses but none that apply here). The fact that the proposed rewritings are more complex and farther from the actual logical (in the cases of b and the additionally incorrect c) means that the results are not more obvious at all. The tricky cases involving fronting and subject raising and the like do suggest the the efforts to ergonomize logic into Lojban are not complete or completely successful. Your proposals do suggest some ways to deal with these hard cases, though these can probably be implemented without all the rest of your apparatus. I got to wondering about "What I think John knows is possible", ignoring the extra problems of cognitive predicates and using / for the descriptor, since typefaces keep confusing LC ell with one and uc i. P /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)), which Is not going to convert easily, as you say. But that is no reason to disparage cases that do convert easily. Indeed, it makes me inclined to doubt the legitimacy of the form itself (quantifying in and all that). Sent from my iPad -- 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. |