Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA

From: Jim Carter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:19:38 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > It's actually pretty simple: there's no need to do real thinking
> > about the sentence:
> > - if you can rephrase it as "It is false that: foo", the na is
> fine.
>
> I call that real thinking, and that't exactly what I do to
> analyze it. But I don't want to have to rephrase a sentence
> in order to understand it. I don't want to have to translate
> it in the first place.

Perhaps the real issue is that you have to reprogram your semantic analyser
for real logic. Mapping Lojban 1-1 into an illogical natlang is going to
mangle the result, particularly where "carbon units" are most sloppy in
their logic. I've actually gotten into the habit of using Lojban-style
predicate logic and quantifier scope (and negation) internally, I remember
a case where two friends were discussing, and one said the exact opposite
of what he intended due to a botched negation, and I was able to catch this
on the fly and "translate", short-circuiting 15 minutes of hot air.

James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555
Email: [email-masked] http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)