From araizen@newmail.net Mon Jun 04 01:48:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 4 Jun 2001 08:48:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 80143 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 08:48:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Jun 2001 08:48:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Jun 2001 08:48:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.112] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2001 08:48:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 08:48:33 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Rabbity Sand-Laugher Message-ID: <9ffi11+4mda@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <81.b75ee53.284be39a@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 877 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.149.111.113 From: "Adam Raizen" la pycyn cusku di'e >I have > often commented on the oddity of people taking up "the logical language" and > then bitching about the logic. I think that most lojbanists (and if I'm wrong, I speak for myself) want a complete language, not an elaborate way of reading logical notation, which probably includes stretching the logical apparatus in some ways. It certainly includes making the language complete enough that it can be used to express "Alice" or any other book. Of all the design features of lojban, the logic is only necessary for the logic. It is not necessary for testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, making the language unambiguous in the ways it is, designing a grammar that is radically different from other languages, etc. The logic *is* a good basis, but to insist on logic and only logic effective condemns the language to die. mu'o mi'e adam