From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 14 12:58:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 14 Sep 2001 19:58:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 33068 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2001 18:15:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2001 18:15:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2001 18:15:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.171.e03f2b (18255) for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <171.e03f2b.28d3a341@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:15:29 EDT Subject: Logic and the Logical Language To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_171.e03f2b.28d3a341_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_171.e03f2b.28d3a341_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a reminder, before we get too loud about Lojbab's position, that the only official sense in which Lojban is a logical language is that its underlying grammar is based upon that of applied first order predicate logic and that, in those few and far between portions where that grammar is strictly adhered to, the rules of that language apply (see especially {ganai ... gi}). Starting from that, one and another of us have run off -- and on -- in various directions, insisting that Lojban had to be logical here or there or... . Not so. Lojban's only requirement beyond the basic ones is to be a speakable human language -- not, by the latest surveys, a paradigm for logicality. To be sure, geeks that we all are, we would like it to be as clear and concise and argumentatively transparent as possible, and we would like to extend its grammatical ambiguity freedom as far as possible into the semantic realm and even the pragmatic. These efforts, if they pay off in better usage, greater clarity, fresh insights, and so on, are always welcome (or should be -- I think Lojbab overlooks their fruits occasionally for rhetorical purposes). But they are not necessary for Lojban in the way that good Lojban usage is. Of course, they do help to define the "good" in good usage, but they are not definitive. --part1_171.e03f2b.28d3a341_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a reminder, before we get too loud about Lojbab's position, that the only official sense in which Lojban is a logical language is that its underlying grammar is based upon that of applied first order predicate logic and that, in those few and far between portions where that grammar is strictly adhered to, the rules of that language apply (see especially {ganai ... gi}).  
Starting from that, one and another of us have run off -- and on -- in various directions, insisting that Lojban had to be logical here or there or... .  Not so.  Lojban's only requirement beyond the basic ones is to be a speakable human language -- not, by the latest surveys, a paradigm for logicality.  To be sure, geeks that we all are, we would like it to be as clear and concise and argumentatively transparent as possible, and we would like to extend its grammatical ambiguity freedom as far as possible into the semantic realm and even the pragmatic.  These efforts, if they pay off in better usage, greater clarity, fresh insights, and so on, are always welcome (or should be -- I think Lojbab overlooks their fruits occasionally for rhetorical purposes).  But they are not necessary for Lojban in the way that good Lojban usage is.  Of course, they do help to define the "good" in good usage, but they are not definitive.
--part1_171.e03f2b.28d3a341_boundary--