Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: thoughts on numerical language

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:09:55 EST

In a message dated 12/4/2001 8:52:28 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I'd think of it as a superset. If you define something numerically, 
> you can do both the language stuff, and the illustration, which is 
> not a "linguistic description". Sure you can do that now, but you 
> get rough boundries between them. A rough example is binary 
> encoding in newsgroup texts...it's a hack at best.
> 

Your binary code as a superset of a language. Not quite, since it does not 
now contain the language as a part, only a code for it. Again, you are being 
remarkably opaque in what you are talking about. Do you mean a language or 
do you mean a code. If you mean a language, then the pictures have no place 
in it; if you meqn a code, then the linguistic stuff you've been throwing 
around have no place. Apparently.
A set of principles seems called for. What are you talking about? What 
goals do you have in mind? How does your numerical whatzit proceed toward 
those goals?
What is a numerical language?

This looks like material for LoCCan3 -- except for its negligible connection 
with Lojban/Loglan.