Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Rabbity Sand-Laugher

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:37:35 EDT

In a message dated 6/4/2001 3:50:17 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.
> 
I hope that you express a general desire here, but two points arise. 1) The 
logic is in fact at least historically thought necessary for the Sapir-Whorf 
test because it provides a radically different langauge and because it 
provides a grammatically unambiguous one, not just for the logical parts. 2) 
My comment was about people who object when logic provides a solution to a 
problem that arises in the language itself: "only" is the most recent 
example, but there have been others stretching back through at least the last 
quarter-century. Why fuss when there is a solution and, to the point, why 
reject the solution when it is certified correct by centuries of usage in 
logi? If you want an ad hoc "solution," join another language.