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

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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")


On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: 

Gavafuckingai!  The _expression_ "myopic singulars" takes me back (and not in a good way) to the olden days of the cross-talking arguments about the meaning of {lo} in Loglan, not to mention their continuation (and reiteration) in Lojban, the world of Trobriand Islanders and tensional  (not quite ex- and not quite in-) expressions, of constantly shifting undefinable concepts (and unexemplifiable, to boot). 

FWIW I regret it if starting this thread made you relive any trauma from the past.
 
All this stuff was presumably laid to rest with xorlo (eventually, it played a role in early versions), but here it is back again.  Of course, I have heard it mentioned that I never understood xorlo (like that makes me unique?), but I do understand this much: if this fuzzy-minded crap is to be resurrected as a part of Xorban, after years of not being seen, I'm out of here (Hurray!)  and I politely request that you disassociate this project from any claim to be related to logic (reason, even).  Alternatively, after all these years, you can come up with a definition (Hell, a clear explanation would help) of what you mean and we can consider whether it has any place to place in a logical (or any other) language.

With all due respect:

1. In Xorban, if you dislike "l-" so much you can always content yourself by using only "s-" and "r-", if you wish to do so.  Just like in Lojban you can always say "su'o" or "ro" rather than "lo".  Good luck with that!

2. Xorban is more isomorphic with FOL than Loglan/Lojban ever was.  It's uncannily isomorphic to FOL, and IMVHO it has a stronger claim of being "related to logic" than any other constructed language that I have ever encountered.

3. I actually think "l-" is perfectly logical and reasonable; it just needs a more robust formalization than has been seen to date.  I think we are on the brink of such a formalization on this very thread.