From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Dec 20 21:45:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 21 Dec 2001 05:45:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31325 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2001 05:45:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Dec 2001 05:45:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 2001 05:45:38 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (61.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.61]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBL5jaT46248 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:45:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011221003635.00b9bf00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:44:50 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request In-Reply-To: <002401c189bb$dc6e7280$91b4003e@default> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218021856.00c40680@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011219230618.0525e100@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 01:07 AM 12/21/01 +0000, Adam Raizen wrote: >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? All JCB planned for is a "normal" language with the logic aspect skewed to the extreme. Now it turns out that the attitudinal system also may be worthy of a SW test, but that system operates more or less independently of the logic system. The tense system does not. It is not clear whether it is advantageous to have lots of potential SW effects in unrelated areas in the language, since the test will necessarily involve trying to figure out what caused the effect, and if there are too many variables from a "standard" language, then we won't know what might cause what effect. But the tense system has never been all that novel. Really it is more or less just a superset of all the tense systems of the world languages. Thus it removes restrictions but does not really create any new expressive capability that is different from natlangs. (The time travel tenses could be thought of as something new, but they would have to be useful to give a noticeable effect. Most of the bells and whistles of the tense system are not particularly useful in everyday situations.) lojbab lojbab > 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. -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org