Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Binary Language

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:44:28 EST

<Natural languages are based upon the human vocal capabilities, whereas this 
is based upon binary. It is expected that this main difference will reveal 
how our vocalization limits have limited our range of thought.>

This makes no sense -- even ignoring the lack of an explanation of what 
'based on binary" means. Any human expression can be binarized and every 
binary expression can be vocalized, each in a number of quite trivial ways. 
So this does not reflect a relevant difference unless -- and until -- we have 
some nontrivial difference pointed out. I didn't see that in the remainder 
of this short sketch.

<The sentence is the basic unit of the language. Everything must be 
contained in sentences. It consists of a truth table, 2 arguments, an 
operation, and 0 or more sentence tags. The sentence tags serve to identify 
an argument that operates on the sentence itself.>

Huh? Sentence consists of 1) a truth table -- of what? typically truth 
tables are for sets of sentences, so this sounds like an infinite regress -- 
each sentence has a truth table for a set of sentences which each have a 
truth table for.... Alternatively, a truth table for a single sentence just 
has two values (or whatever the basic range is). 2) two arguments 
(names/pronouns?) 3) an operation -- on what? 4)sentence tags that identify 
and argument that operates on the sentence itself -- again terminological 
problems: arguments typically are not things that operate on setences or 
anything else, rather they are what are operated on. 
Is this the order in which the components of a sentence occur or can the 
pieces be jumbled toether hoggledy-piggledy?

<All sentences belong to a group for purposes of a truth table. This gives 
all the combinations of true and false of the following sentences.>
Heres is that problem come in -- since each sentence contains a truth table 
and each sentence is in agroup for purposes of some truth table which deals 
with the following sentences, where is the truth table that actually deals 
with what? 
I take it that this is an attempt to deal with the problem that Lojban (and 
usual logical notation) does not do expeditiously, namely connections among 
more that two sentences, but the statement here is not clear enough to see 
whether it is useful. I would have expected that sentences per se did not 
have truth tables as essential parts but sentence groups (?paragraphs?) did: 
essentially the list of values for the appropriate combination of the 
sentences in the group in the usual order).

<An idea is the basic word of the language. They are divided into 0, 1, 2 
with focus 1, and 2 with focus 2 argument ideas, as well as base and custom. 
0 argument ideas are useful for expressing attitudes (interjections), such as 
"ARGH". 1 argument ideas are for intransitive verbs, descriptions ("is"), or 
identification ("is a"). 2 argument ideas are for transitive verbs. The 
focus must be set to 1 for the rightmost idea in a sentence op.>

Ideas ain't words and conversely, though I think the plan here is for a very 
tight relation between "basic ideas" and "basic words" (whether the first 
notion really makes absolute sense, it can be used relative to a aprticular 
system; the second of course is just gismu, I suppose). The next sentence is 
grammatically obscure in one place but later examples explain it: there are 
four kinds of ideas, depending on adicity first (0, 1, and 2 places) and, in 
the case of 2, on whether the "subject" is the first or second term. There 
are also basic and derived words (I think "idea" is essentially 
"predicates", and I have interpreted "base" and "custom" ). 
Can ever idea be reduced to either a medadic, monadic or dyadic relation? 
How do we partitiion up "give"? And so on?

<An operator is one or more idea words. In this list, the words modify the 
word to their right. The rightmost idea word will always define the 
appropriate number and description of the arguments to be used. Parentheses 
can be used to group items together, but the right modifying rule remains. >

Is this the same as the "operation" mentioned earlier? Apparently not 
exactly for -- as near as I can make out -- that might be an "idea," whereas 
operators are strings of ideas: read "gismu" and "tanru", apparently -- with 
Lojban rules. 
Why are there two arguments in every sentence is some operations are medadic 
and some monadic (what are the extra arguments? Come to that, what are 
arguments altogether?)

<The amount and location of parentheses are coded into binary using an 
algorithm to be determined>
For instance, by putting the code for left paren and righ parent before and 
after the codes for the operators?

<A reference is the basic way of referring to something more than once. It 
first must be assigned an ID with a backcount to count arguments backwards in 
order to point to a previous argumnet. All arguments count when looking 
backwards...thus it can be assumed that a sentence has 2 arguments plus 2 for 
every tag. 

After, it can be used by refering to the ID. In this way, the reference 
serves as both the pronoun (he, she, it), and the name.>

Does this mean that when we come to refer to the same thing again, it gets an 
ID that consists of the backcount to its previous occurrence? If so, then 
how is it referred to the third time, when the count will presumably be 
different? So, that is probably not what the ID is: How does it get its 
initial reference? If this is simple enough, why not use it as you say as 
both pronoun and name (repetition is also anaphora)?
If we need a backcount, what do we do with subordinate references within 
references or are they eliminated somehow? How id "John's mother" dealt 
with, in other words?
Why does a tag need two arguments (what are tags anyhow? no examples so far).

The final muck (base conventions undefined -- I take it that some of you can 
recognize familiar patterns here) does not answer any of these questions, 
alas.