[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
> <At this point, please understand that I am only naming some > issues here on my mind. I too do not know how And handles > things in his conlang, though I vaguely gather it involves > employing quantifiers at the higher tree level as would be > demanded by straightforward logical representation. I would > be satisfied with *any* syntax that veriably assigns every > expression in the language one, and exactly one, equivalent > logical expression, and allows every possible logical > expression at least one linguistic expression. That seems > to me the minimal requirement for any true loglang.> > > Much too easy and way too hard. Any logic is going to give an infinite > number of equivalent forms for each expression -- some trivial, some not at > all. And any form can be taken as a Logical expression, an atom. You want, > I suppose, a canonical form (defined some way other than "What my rules give" > -- and lots of luck with that) and one that is derived in some explanatory > way from the original expression (ditto, for "explanatory"). I think it is > enough if you get one that works every time you use the tools at hand -- and > maybe never get one that is seriously wrong (unless the original is screwed > us in unnoticed ways). I should have said "assigns every expression in the language one, and exactly one, *set* of logically equivalent expressions". Is it your feeling that there is no possibility of demonstrating that the rules of a constructed grammar indeed lead to such an unambiguous logical mapping? I am still digesting the rest of your post. A lot of food of thought, as well as leads to areas which will deserve my further investigation. Interesting... Regards --- Mike