On 6 Feb 2015 21:10, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > First I'd have to know what English is, in order to compare,
>>
>> So although you're not sure what it is, you have an idea of what it is that is good enough for you to know what it isn't?
>
> Yes, but that's not saying much. I know it's not a dishwasher or a lawn mower for example.
Still, you also think you know it's not what I think it is, which I think requires a fuller degree of knowledge than knowing it's not a dishwasher does.
>>
>> > but it seems unlikely that English is the same as a full explication of its rules.
>>
>> How about if English is the same as a full explication of a family of sets of rules, one set per idiolect? Or you feel that even an idiolect is not the same as a full explication of its rules? Is the game of chess different from a full explication of its rules? If Yes, is that because there are many different possible explications, or because chess, like tigers, is very different from a set of rules?
>
> I can accept that the game of chess is fully described by its rules. But even for an idiolect, it doesn't seem likely that a finite set of rules would describe it,
Do have a sense of where the problem lies?
You accept that some explications are better than others, but think no single explication can be solely right. So could you accept that a family of similar explications could be right?
What about Lojban? What's the relationship between it and an explication of it? Is it more like English or more like chess?
--And.
--