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

From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@hidden.email>

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:39:04 -0500

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

To: "engelang@yahoogroups.com" <engelang@yahoogroups.com>

Well, so far you seem to be 1) screwing up on part I and 2) the ones appealing to metalanguage and even pragmatic items to save the crap (well, make it look like at least useful manure). Yes, a type II program needs a successful type I, which (were I working on a type II program or even thinking of it as a separate program) is why I object to messing stuff up at the start.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:15 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:

Mike S., On 08/09/2012 01:42:
> 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.

FWIW I agree with this. The isomorphism is achieved mostly by not introducing a load of extra cruft.

But we should remember the distinction between (I) rules that map a sentence's phonological form to its logical form, and (II) rules that map logical forms to (stuff in) (possible) worlds. We do know from past discussions on Lojban list that some folk, including John Clifford, want of a logical language that it do not only (I) but also (II), whereas others, including me and Jorge, want only that it do (I), considering (II) to be essentially extralinguistic and unachievable and potentially overly restrictive for users.

Therefore, folk who are after (II) are really after a different project than Xorban is. However, to make a Xorban-B they could still use the grammar of Xorban and simply add on type-(II) rules.

--And.