From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 12 18:09:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 13 Sep 2001 01:09:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 26782 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2001 01:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2001 01:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2001 01:07:29 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.111.54059ad (4068) for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <111.54059ad.28d160b1@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:06:57 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_111.54059ad.28d160b1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_111.54059ad.28d160b1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/12/2001 6:58:05 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu 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. --part1_111.54059ad.28d160b1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/12/2001 6:58:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
nicholas@uci.edu 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.
--part1_111.54059ad.28d160b1_boundary--