From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 07 17:14:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 01:14:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 38698 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 01:14:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 01:14:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 01:14:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.1c4.13f7f2f (4468) for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:14:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:14:04 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:11:29 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > 2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position, > but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve > of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am > convinced we will never reach an agreement about this. >> Yes, Lojban is spoken logic, supposedly. Logic has two universals which it typically represents in surface structures very close to the two putative equivalents. Should we not follow it in this? Or can we now toss over all the other connections with Logic as well: make {a} XOR, and {anai} contrary to fact and so on paractically ad inf? It makes a perfectly sensible language, maybe even a more sensible one from some points of view than Lojban, but it ceases to be Lojban (or any Loglan, for that matter). So, where is the point of no return on this? << I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u /me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/ su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always the possibility of being precise either way. >> I am not sure I would use "salomonic" here. It seems to me to kill the baby. Now we have 12 quantifiers instead of four -- or two. While most sentences will make no practical difference, the semantics will contain a contiuning floating ambiguity (not good in a logical langauge). Admittedly, the new quantifiers are shorter than spelling out the odd ones in a given system (well, about exactly as long as the obversion cases) but we always have to do this to be clear, there is no usual reading. Yes, though, it will rarely make a difference. Which makes me wonder what secret agenda folks have that makes them make such a fuss about the regular position. --part1_1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:11:29 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<<

2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position,
but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve
of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am
convinced we will never reach an agreement about this.

>>
Yes, Lojban is spoken logic, supposedly. Logic has two universals which it typically represents in surface structures very close to the two putative equivalents. Should we not follow it in this? Or can we now toss over all the other connections with Logic as well: make {a} XOR, and {anai} contrary to fact and so on paractically ad inf? It makes a perfectly sensible language, maybe even a more sensible one from some points of view than Lojban, but it ceases to be Lojban (or any Loglan, for that matter). So, where is the point of no return on this?

<<
I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness
of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u
/me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/
su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want
to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to
use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there
is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always
the possibility of being precise either way.
>>
I am not sure I would use "salomonic" here. It seems to me to kill the baby. Now we have 12 quantifiers instead of four -- or two. While most sentences will make no practical difference, the semantics will contain a contiuning floating ambiguity (not good in a logical langauge). Admittedly, the new quantifiers are shorter than spelling out the odd ones in a given system (well, about exactly as long as the obversion cases) but we always have to do this to be clear, there is no usual reading.
Yes, though, it will rarely make a difference. Which makes me wonder what secret agenda folks have that makes them make such a fuss about the regular position.

--part1_1c4.13f7f2f.2afc69dc_boundary--