John E Clifford, On 11/09/2012 03:57:
> *From:* And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> John E Clifford, On
> 10/09/2012 17:12:
>>> As for your complaint about my way of doing things, I don't see
>>> what I do that is non-standard or that somehow requires special
>>> rules.
>
>> Which complaint? I haven't complained about your way of doing things.
>
> You seem to think I am doing a type II project, which you take as
> requiring special rules and devices, but which looks to me just like
> first semester logic.
If you look it as a complaint, then you grossly misunderstood me. I mean, you pretty much got the absolute opposite understanding from what I had intended. My point is that we want different incompatible things from a loglang, so rather than waste time complaining about each other we should instead work on different loglangs.
>>> Yes, I want to know what makes a sentence true (when that is the
>>> relevant issue), but surely you want that too. What is the point
>>> of sying something if there is no way of finding out whether it i
>>> true? (I leave out theological questions for the nonce.)
>> I do want to know what makes a sentence true. But that lies outside
>> the scope of the formal codified language design as I envision it.
> So, you want an uninterpreted calculus. No problem. But what has that
> to do with a language, which is meant to communicate, e.g., to tell
> people what is true?
Natlangs are not formal codified designs, are not uninterpreted calculuses, are languages, and are used to communicate. The sort of loglang I want is like a natlang, but with the grammar codified.
--And.