From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Aug 06 22:27:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 05:27:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 71117 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 05:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 05:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 05:27:04 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (dynamic113.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.113]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f775R3135572 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010807011442.00cd5a60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:25:01 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] no'a In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 01:13 AM 8/7/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >My answer is this: if, as in predicate logic, each quantifier >begins a new bridi, then by go'i-ing to the appropriate >bridi (outer, including the quantifier, or inner, not including >the quantifier), you could get both A and B readings, at least >for 1 & 2. > >If only Loglan had remained true to its logical origins. Then >these sorts of issues would not arise, and we'd have decent >ways of saying all of the A & B sentences. If I recall correctly, pc has said that any and all use of quantifiers and variables that are not prenexed in Loglan/Lojban have ALWAYS been a compromise from the rigors of formal logic. Even JCB realized that prenex-heavy logic was not humanly speakable, and the moment you start allowing usages without prenexes you lose some of the traceability "to its logical origins". Lojban DOES retain the ability to be explicit with prenexes, if you really need to be true to logic, and we are slowly working out some of the logical issues of non-prenexed usages. But while I recognize that the logical stuff is really important to you and some others, a focus on pragmatics is more important to others. Priorities thus remain balanced for the nonce. There is some risk that "usage will decide" without lojbab/Lojban Central participating (based on Jorge's dominating the usage field). My human limits seem to dictate that I accept this, trusting to the more logically oriented community to serve as checks and balances on each other to prevent baseline violation from creeping in as a standard without my having input on every usage issue that comes up (many of which, like ce'u and kau, I cannot pretend to understand anyway). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org