@And Rosta : Are there many people thinking
strict logic is more important than usability?? I mean, it's okay to me to try getting a language
based on logic, and try to keep it "the most logical as possible". But language itself is not a fully formal, consistent and complete (as you and Gleki said recently, and as even CLL says), so why the hell try to be strict on logic when those areas of interest are not strict? As far as I understand from the history & documentation, even the start idea behind the LOGICAL language was not to make it
FULLY logical, but
BASED on logic. Am I right?
la .sykyndyr.
Le mardi 7 novembre 2017 16:35:26 UTC+1, And Rosta a écrit :
On 7 November 2017 at 13:49, Timothy Lawrence
<timothy....@connect.qut.edu.au> wrote:
"You can learn the language described here with assurance that it will not be subject to further fiddling by language-meisters."
- Complete Lojban Language
http://lojban.github.io/cll/1/2/
I only use CLL Lojban. I believe that an unambiguous language needs to have a central, singular version to stay unambiguous.
We have long known that CLL Lojban is not logically unambiguous, is not internally consistent, is not complete, and especially cannot be completed in a coherent way that is consistent with CLL. To the best of my knowledge, nobody who understands and cares about logic and consistency has ever maintained that CLL Lojban is viable. However, there are people who hold that fidelity to CLL -- and to a standard dialect that emerges spontaneously from CLL-faithful usage -- is of paramount importance, outweighing considerations of logic and consistency. The community has always been polarized between these two positions; all that has changed is that the former group has grown at the expense of the latter, as the requisite understanding of the logical issues has spread.
--And.