From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jul 20 11:53:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 20 Jul 2001 18:53:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 56802 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2001 18:52:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Jul 2001 18:52:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2001 18:52:56 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15NfOQ-0001uz-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:52:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:52:54 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] how can i help lojban? what can $ do? Message-ID: <20010720115254.M20749@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 02:38:47PM -0400, Craig wrote: > >I would like to mention that within the last few days I ran an ad on > >Google for Lojban. (I spent about $4 total on it, so it was worth it > >for an experiment.) The ad read something like: > > >Lojban > >The Logical Language > >For unambiguous communication > > I just reread this, and realize that this is an example of the kind of > claim to total unambiguity I refer to. To quote Lojbab's answer to my > complaint, "I believe we explicitly say that Lojban is NOT > semantically unambiguous." Um, how's that again? > > Unambiguous communication that's not unambiguous? Syntacticially and grammatically unambiguous. _Not_ semantically. Look at tanru, just for starters. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/