[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 08/09/2012 03:29:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote: 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?
I expressed myself badly. (II) involves formally modelling the extralinguistic world, including possible worlds, and defining correspondence rules between logical forms and, let's say, models of states of affairs. To take a concrete example, proponents of (II) want a rigid definition of cathood to be part of the language (hence questions about what exactly is la mlta). In contrast, for proponents of (I)-only, mlt in logical form is a pointer to the mlt entry in the encyclopedia of everything, but the contents of that entry are external to (I)-only language. Mike S., On 08/09/2012 08:06:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:29 PM, John E. Clifford 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.
I agree. If s- and r- are inadequate, we're open to having it explained to us why they're inadequate and we're open to considering solutions to whatever problems there are. With, in my case, the caveat that I want to deliver a (I)-only language -- call it a "worldblind" language in contrast to an "encyclopedical" language in which the rules of the language include the contents of encyclopedia entries. John E. Clifford, On 08/09/2012 05:00:
So la mlta xrka ascribes blackness to the object whose sole *defining* characteristic is catness. And what's this object? Is it a member of the extension of mlt in the relevant universe? Then it may be incidentally black, but that would hardly justify ra mlta xrka. Is it a something else in extension mlt by courtesy and also in all supersets of mlt? Then, of course, if it is in extension xrk , then the universal is justified and the particular, too, since extensions are L-sets. But, of course, this is rarely the case: cats aren't usually uniform for color. What's left? Catness? There is (or, I assume, will be) an expression for that which says so clearly, which this does not. The mystery continues.
I want to create a loglang that expressly doesn't answer questions of this sort, at least not in any formal way free of contradictions, squintings and so forth. So let's collaborate where we can, and where our goals are too incompatible, we can make different loglangs (which may still have a lot in common). John E Clifford, On 08/09/2012 14:49:
*From:* Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> 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. I've given you one plausible interpretation, that l is an ever leftmost quantifier that picks out a bunch of items and sticks with thm throughout its scope. It does the trick and is a familiar feature of natural languages. There are problems with it, xorxes insists, and so it may need some work, but it is not obviously crippled from the getgo.
I don't see problems with it. Crucially, if Y is true of something that is that bunch, then Y is true of everything that is that bunch -- given that it's a single bunch. There's a slightly different quantifier that I'd been meaning to mention, but have kept on forgetting. It's an existential quantifer with scope over the whole discourse: "Once upon a time, there was a poor woodcutter. He lived in a hut with his dutiful daughter." In Livagian I treat it as a separate quantifier in its own right.
Well, being a logical language poses some restrictions (just what depends upon what we mean by "logical"). One that I think is pretty generally accepted is that the operators are clearly defined and consistent.
We shouldn't waste time *arguing* over what we mean by logical. It is enough that we each, x, simply define what characteristics x requires of a loglang if it is to satisfy x. Where our requirements are the same or at least compatible, we can collaborate. Where they're not, we can create alternative versions. John E. Clifford, On 08/09/2012 04:39:
[And Rosta wrote:But we should remember the distinction between (I) rules that map a sentence's phonological form to its logical form,]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.
I don't want to close down fruitful debate, but on this specific issue that bothers you so, I've been seeing eye to eye with Jorge for twenty years(!), and for most of that time you've been objecting. I think this has been demonstrated to be a case where we aren't going to reach consensus, so we need to look for alternative solutions. Here are some suggested solutions: A. If you can live with lV and are happy with just sV and rV, just let the matter rest. B. If you can live with lV, but want another new quantifier, have a go persuading the rest of us that it is needed and not already covered by lV. C. If you can't live with lV, define a variant dialect of Xorban in which lV is abolished or given a different definition. --And.