[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban Development

The "modern, logical 'every'" is, of course, the importing one going back to the BCEs.  The other version is very recent and very alternative and very uninteresting. It is actually tidier to take the importing form and introduce non-restriction, as Xorban does. 
As I recall, the Wikipedia on Lesniewski is pretty good, also the one on the Quine-Goodman-Leonard parts calculus (I forget the exact title).  Luschei's book on Lesniewski's logic is a bit dense and not all that informative at an intuitive level -- nor at a formal one, because of Lesniewski's own notions of formalism.


From: Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [engelang] Xorban Development

 
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:38 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
Yes.  Standard logic since at least 400BCE, so not a change.  The change is whether to use restricted or unrestricted quantifier (introduced roughly 1858).

You can start with any basic quanitifiers you want, but that one complicates things a bit formally.  Plus sometimes you do need the non-importing version.  So why not design the language by making the modern logical "every" the basic one, and allow the language to mark the importing variant exactly those times you need it?  You don't need it with ra mlta.

I think what I want to do now is revisit l- but approach it from another direction.  Do you know of any good online sources for L-sets, mereology and the like?

--
co ma'a mke