From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 18 09:44:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 16:44:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 61907 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 16:44:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 16:44:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 16:44:41 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:22:27 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:52:50 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:52:15 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: [much interesting personal detail snipped] #I took early retirement to get away from students and for the pay=20 #increase that it involved. You took early retirement with a pay increase?! Me green green green with envy! #I am, I guess, a hardliner with glorky tendencies, which I suppress=20 #rhetorically and professionally. I think that Lojban is spelled out much= =20 #more thoroughly than it is generally given credit for (by And, say) and th= at=20 #it is the business of users to bring to light these spells and apply them.= =20=20 #Thus, I tend to automatically reject any claim that we need a new locution= to=20 #say something, since I think there is already a way to say it in Lojban (t= he=20 #2500 year history of applying logic has covered more cases than have been= =20 #brought up yet, so I generally think we can manage what comes along).=20=20 I certainly agree that anything that be said in ordinary predicate logic can be said in Lojban, and that most claims that we need a new locution in order to say something are mistaken. If there is a need for new locution= s it is to make some existing but cumbersome expressions less longwinded. On my claim about Lojban being unspelled out, it clearly is many many times better spelled out than any other invented language has ever been, but a grammar is a rule system that defines sentences as form--meaning pairings and I do believe that it is therefore massively incomplete, even setting aside the gismu and lujvo. For example, try going through the mahoste and identifying those cmavo whose meaning is both clear and uncontroversial -- there are very very few.=20 --And.