[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban Development



On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:58 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
Mike S., On 27/08/2012 02:17:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:34 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
>
>
> Mike S., On 27/08/2012 01:20:
>
> >The reasons are:
> >
> > 1. The grammar doesn't allow variables to be suffixed to operators.
>
> OK, but that could change. The difference between predicates and operators is only syntactic; operators are a kind of abbreviation of predicates.
>
> It's not a question for me, but I suspect that most changes to the
> production rules, even small ones, are going to be declined at this
> early stage. There are a couple areas where I feel an urge to add
> syntactic sugar myself, but I think we have to hang in there for
> now.

How come it's not a question for you? Aren't we discussing what is the optimal loglang grammar we can currently come up with? You obviously have a lot to contribute to that discussion. Or do you mean that by labelling this loglang _Xorban_ you want to leave decisions to Jorge rather than to consensus? (If so, I agree that a loglang designed under the dictatorship of Jorge is likely to be much better than a loglang reflecting the consensus of more mediocre minds, but at this stage we should be brainstorming and discussing, not proferring ideas for them to be accepted or declined.)

Honestly, I do want to leave final decisions to Jorge rather than to consensus.  However, perhaps I was unfairly neglecting what you and Jorge might want.  If you and Jorge both prefer development based on consensus, then I am okay with that too.  Otherwise, Jorge is dictator.

I don't believe that this dictatorship in any way precludes brainstorming and discussing what the optimal loglang grammar is.  There is a *lot* of tricky stuff to figure out, and I anticipate excellent solutions coming from all participants.

 
> > 3. Also, the interpretation and transformation rule would have to be
> > determined precisely in the same way ju would have to be.
>
> X-fa is the state of affairs in which X is the case. Is there more needs to be said than that?
>
> I can't answer that without knowing a little better how your events
> work. In your proposal, are (1) and (2) equivalent?
>
> (1) la xrma le sme jefe bjra stra
> (2) la xrma le sme je bjrafe strafe

My first answer was: "I don't think they're strongly equivalent. (1) doesn't entail (2). But (2) entails (1)." But I was thinking that (2) means that the bjr-ing and the str-ing are the same event. But that's wrong: consider the following, where jmv is 'alive' and 'mrs' is dead, and jo is "or". Clearly the jmv-ing and the mrs-ing aren't the same event.

(1) la xrma le sme jofe jmva mrsa
(2) la xrma le sme jo jmvafe mrsafe

So I don't know what the answer to your question is -- I haven't thought about it a lot, and the answer isn't obvious to me.

With respect to your & my (2), you are pondering whether the bjr-ing and the str-ing _are_ the same event.  Could it be that they're _parts_ of the same event?

[As a side note, I believe Xorban "jo" still means iff.  Either way,] I believe that in your (2) if it's accepted that having identical -fe entails being part of the same event, then I believe we can give truth conditions pretty straightforwardly.

E(e) event(e) and( jmvafe iff mrsafe )
In some event, the horse is alive iff it's dead -> contradiction.

E(e) event(e) and( jmvafe xor mrsafe )
In some event, the horse either is alive or dead -> tautology.

Just before hitting enter, it dawns on me that another reading obtains if one allows the event "e" to include the history of the entire earth, including future history.

E(e) event(e) and( jmvafe iff mrsafe )
In some event, the horse is alive iff it's dead -> tautology (i.e. every horse was both at one time inside event e).

E(e) event(e) and( jmvafe xor mrsafe )
In some event, the horse either is alive or dead -> contradiction (horses don't live forever inside e).

But clearly the second reading is the unobvious/unordinary one, and surely a speaker not trying to mislead would phrase things another way.