From ragnarok@pobox.com Thu Apr 25 16:21:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 25 Apr 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 32435 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 23:21:53 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AF91BF98014E; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:21:53 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] So you think you're logical? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:21:51 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >The question would be whether the results would be better if the >problem was presented in Lojban, where presumably this particular >connective is more transparent. And what would happen if the >problems were worded in English something like: >"The rule governing the production of the cards states that a >card either doesn't have a circle on one side, or it has the >colour yellow on the other." >That's how a lojbanist would read it. Would we get a higher >percenatge of right answers? In Lojban, yes. In English, where or often means xor, probably not.