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

Whoa! Who belongs to the 'lo = su'o' camp? No one I know of off hand, and certainly not me (I explicitly say s does not imply l). I also have done rather more serious work than most with actual possible world semantics (rather than the casual drop ins that turn up often in the discussions back on Lojban). But I think that an awful lot of language is extensional and ought to be treated as such, bringing in the intensional only as needed. That there are uses of "bears", for example, that require intensional treatment is obvious; that they don't all is equally obvious and trying to ram them all together in one ambitensional form is the road to logical disaster.

BTW, FOPL is strictly extensional and Xorban and Lojban, insofar as they are intensional, are a totally different breed. The most accurate description of what we are after, I suspect, is a speakable version of Montague's intensional language (never mind that Richard would say that English already was one).

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:29 PM, "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:15 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.

I find this (I) versus (II) distinction very puzzling. As far as I can see, possible worlds have an essential part to play in the logical form underlying human language semantics, and they must be incorporated in Xorban if it is to be a human language. Every human being without the slightest formal linguistic training easily grasps lines like "I coulda been a contender", and that line clearly invokes a possible world. What on earth is "essentially extralinguistic and unachievable" about that?

As far as the old discussions, John Clifford and others in the lo=su'o camp seem to have wanted everything to be purely extensional. Extensionalism makes it easier to ignore possible worlds. Maybe I misunderstand you, but I'd say you have the lines of battle drawn exactly backwards on the question of possible worlds.