On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:29 PM, John E. Clifford
<kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
1. No you can't, as witness the various interplays among the quantifiers.
What exactly are you asking for? If you want FOL, it's there; Xorban "s-" and "r-" are in full force. If you want to speak in human instead, then why not freely use "l-"? If you don't like my proposed formalization, then feel free to give us yours. I want to hear your ideas. If you've been thinking about this for thirty years, then surely you have some constructive observations.
2. I can translate about 90% of Lojban, less the pragmatic stuff, into FOPL in a fairly rule oriented way. The main problem is with RHEs. With this l, the percentage drops remarkably, since no l sentence goes over. How many loglangs do you know and how much logic?
I know English, FOL, Lojban, and bits of other European languages and some other languages. I also understand programming languages which while inhuman do tend to order one's thoughts in a very precise way. Hopefully, what I write here in the Engelang group stands of its own accord. If not, then I invite you to offer an opposing point of view. I am here to learn.
3. Lord, I hope so, but thirty years' experience leaves me unhopeful.