Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:07:12 -0000

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> > > Probably it is ungrammatical either because a) we never thought
of adding a
> > > rule for CAhA+NAI because we couldn't think of what such a thing
might
> > > mean
> >
> >This seems to bias s-w effects, doesn't it?
>
> Not likely, since there has been no plan to examine S-W effects
based on
> the tense system.

That seems kind of silly. Wasn't the Hopi tense system *the* S-W
effect par excellence for Whorf? If we're not going to examine S-W
effects based on the tense system, and not ones based on the
vocabulary, what are we left with? Just the logic? Why don't we just
see if people's world-view changes when they learn formal logic and
save ourselves a lot of trouble.

mu'o mi'e .adam.