[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
In a message dated 6/15/2002 4:10:33 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@hidden.email writes:I believe that the 'logicality' that attracts many Lojbanists I agree that that is what some folks want, but I think we have been at pains to disabuse those folks that Lo*an has much of an edge on those commodities. Syntactically unambiguous, yes. The rest much less clearly so -- not that the first does not help a lot, for it removes a large source of ambiguity, but all the others remain, including some potential new traps (logical connectives in tanru are almost as awful as tanru generally for the tricks they can pull, for example). And, for precision Lo*an offers no advantages whatsoever that I can see. <Well, I'm happy to be the optimistic one, for once! [about the possibility of an agreed upon notion of logical structure] At any rate, I don't see that any of the disputes you allude to have had an impact on Lojban or major discussions about it.> Well, Lojban has not concerned itself with these issues much. But, since you are raising them, they will impact on your discussions of Lojban. I don't know whether you have a favorite among the proposals already afloat or are proposing a new one on your own, but, in either case, showing that Lojban or Livonian (that can't be right) or whatever is relatively transparent to that structure will not amount to much, since most pros in the field will not think that that structure is of any particular interest or importance, since not what they call "logical structure" or whatever. <<I few What you say is fair, but, I should point out for the benefit of others, unofficial. not part of the design or specification of Lojban. Rather, it would be one analyst's interpretation and analysis of what Lojban is (-- i.e. one person's reckoning of what the facts of Lojban are, and an analysis of those facts).> Yes, but it would be hard to be otherwise, since Lojban has no oifficial doctrine on any of these issues, aside from what the parse of a particular sentence is. So, of course, when I say it is close to semantic structure or logical structure, I mean to what _I_ mean by those expressions (I won't even bother with "and all other right-thinking folk" as that is probably either false or vacuous or both). We all can make cases, of course, but nothing definitive either way. Which leads me to wonder if ther task is worth a lot of effort -- not that either ofm us is likely to drop it, whatever we decide about that. |