Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:06:57 EDT

In a message dated 9/12/2001 6:58:05 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> And if you wanted Lojban to be only
> about Sapir-Whorf and getting it speakable, and not about logical
> quibbling and rigour, then I am yet again forced to ask And's question:
> Why did you pick a logic-based conlang to start with? You could have
> dispensed with all the logic quibbling, and still gotten your Sapir-Whorf
> effects, if you'd worked with Laadan.)
> 

In fairness to Lojbab, he is stuck with what he inherited from Jim to a 
certain extent -- and that includes a mass of confusions. As for Laadan, it 
is clearly too inchoate to be much use as a conlang. And besides it is only 
work-on-able by girls [deliberate irony].

<(And before anyone starts rolling their eyes about the subscripts, how
else would you make sure the two ce'u are not coreferential?)>

{ce'u}s, being independent short scope lambda variables, are by nature 
non-co-referential (cf. {ma}); the problem is to show when they are 
coreferential.

Since I regularly get confused about what each person means by "properety" 
and "quality" (two words between which I myself can't fit my yoctometer), I 
will pass on that issue, which I suspect to be another issue altogether lost 
in classical Logl/jban near-miss terminology.