Subject: RE: [lojban] no'a

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:25:01 -0400

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 [email-masked]
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