[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 12:19 AM 1/7/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > >A good logical language is one that is not only logically precise but
> > > >also concise
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> >Because a notation that is insufficiently concise is a deterrent to
> >using it. If it takes ages to say what you want to say, then you
> >are more likely to choose to say something shorter than what you
> >had wanted to say
> >
> >Creating a logical language is a pretty trivial undertaking, because
> >logic notations have already been invented. The challenge is to
> >create a more concise (and hence more usable) notation
>
> If logicians haven't done it, what makes you think we could?
Because (i) it's blindingly obvious how to do it, (ii) I've done it
in my own engelang, (iii) for the reasons I spelled out in my
previous message, logicians aren't interested in concision.
> > > Formal predicate notation is concise only in using single symbols for
> > > concepts. I never made it far in logic class, but it seemed to take very
> > > little to end up with quite complex "sentences", and there was no sense
> > > that there needed to be abbreviations presented
> >
> >That is because in logic class there is no call for concision, but
> >there is a call for a notation that is homomorphous with the
> >logical formula, so that the logical structure is the more
> >apparent
>
> Most people think "spoken predicate logic" means precisely a language which
> matches the forms that one would see in a logic class.
I know. But they are naive and don't realize that a language can
unambiguously encode logical formulas without mimicking the notation
in which logical formulas are usually written.
> Unfortunately,
> beginning logic classes when I attended school did not mention lambda or
> tense logic or Montague semantics, so most of this stuff is way over their
> head
Qua pure logic it's over my head too. But we all use the underlying ideas
in our daily speech and thought, so everybody already has tacit knowledge
of tense logic, modal logic, etc.
> > > The concept of using
> > > discursives as abbreviations for logical constructs was largely my own,
> > > though JCB had discursives that were logically unanalyzed. (I think jimc
> > > also had the idea of analyzing discursives logically, and he and pc may
> > > have had some go-rounds on this issue before I became involved). JCB's
> > > examples of "spoken symbolic logic" in Loglan 1 were generally quite
> > > long-winded
> >
> >I have always presumed that was because of a failure on JCB's part
> >to understand that lexical structure needn't be homomorphous with
> >logical structure, and -- due to inexperience -- a failure to
> >apprehend the importance of concision
>
> He recognized the importance, but not the importance of having concise
> forms being defined precisely as concisions of longer forms. In other
> words, he presumed (I don't think he explicitly did so, but it was there)
> that concision would lose information, and it was merely a matter of
> figuring what stuff would be acceptable.
Yes, I agree. This is another (clearer) way of saying what I was
saying.
> He did not accept enough to leave
> a language that was speakable as well as logical enough. Not enough
> abbreviations and those that he added were even vaguer than ours
>
> >I remembered the contributions from jimc and the final assignment
> >by John, a UI meaning "without parallel". I have nothing against
> >that UI, and it may save us from so often wishing to express
> >'logical only', but it does not itself express 'logical only', does
> >it
>
> I dunno. What's "logical only" if not that?
I defined it in my previous message (quoted below).
> > > > > I am not sure what
> > > > > happens to that meaning when within a negation. I am quite sure that
> > > > > people won't consider what happens to that meaning, until someone
> > does the
> > > > > analysis and calls them on it
> > > >
> > > >It is easy to say what happens to logical 'only' within negation
> > >
> > > What is "logical 'only'"? If we could have agreed as to what it was, it
> > > would have probably been explicitly adopted
> >
> >"only x is broda" = "every broda = x"
>
> How about an example where this differs?
????
> > > >We can't say what happens to {po'o}, because that has no logical
> > > >definition, and nor is there any general account of how UI that
> > > >might encode logical meaning interact with other logical elements
> > > >in the bridi
> > >
> > > There is *in general* very little account of how cmavo interact with each
> > > other
> >
> >In cases where CLL is explicit enough about the individual cmavo, we
> >can deduce how they interact
>
> But we often did not consider how they would interact in making them
> explicit, and I suspect that most of the problems that have cropped up have
> been precisely those sorts of interactions, where people are making too
> much of wording that was adopted without considering what people would do
> in interactive cases. (And in many cases, Cowan was perfectly content to
> NOT consider what the interactions would lead to)
Yes, this is all true. When we deduce how they interact we can find
contradictions or undecidables. This is one reason why I've always
maintained that a lojban academy needs to be permanent, prescribing
answers when the problems are discovered, though hopefully its
workload would diminish over time.
> > > Logical semantic precision would be equally infinite as non-logical
> > > semantic precision
> >
> >You seem to me to be making confident pronouncements about a
> >subject you don't understand, but I often have that impression and
> >sometimes it's wrong. Maybe you could explain to me why you think
> >logical semantic precision would be infinite? Take some logical
> >formula: in what respects is it imprecise? Perhaps you mean that
> >nonlogical semantic precision, in definition of nonlogical
> >semantic predicates must perforce involve a logical element? If
> >so, then that's not what I meant by logical precision
>
> Since I don't know much about logical semantics, and I have the impression
> that it is not in the least bit simpler than nonlogical semantics, I cannot
> imagine how it would result in simpler expressions. But we may simply be
> talking at cross purposes as to the nature of "complete semantic precision"
> both logical and non-logical
I was talking not about simplicity but finiteness. Logical precision
is finite because the logical elements have definite definitions.
Nonlogical precision is infinite because the nonlogical elements
have indefinite definitions and because the predicate we want to
express may not be expressible by a single word.
> > > >resi'e = x1 is a 2th portion of mass x2
> > >
> > > The definition was poorly worded. Trying to define things
> baseline-ably in
> > > 100 characters with no examples was something we never intended,
> and no one
> > > checked my wordings before baselining (which I never wanted to do before
> > > the dictionary). But a "2th" portion is not English-grammatical anyway
> > > (nor is a 1/2th, I'll admit)
> >
> >We all agree that the vlaste are rife with poor wordings. Sometimes
> >that wordings are unclear, sometimes they give rise to contradiction,
> >sometimes they fail to express the designers' intention. Si'e is an
> >instance of the last of these. But these are the baselined materials,
> >and they define current SL
>
> Thus we bear the fruit of people insisting on baselining a document that
> wasn't written with the intent of being a baseline document (none of the
> wordlists were - they were LogFlash file inputs)
Tell-me-aboud-it. I thought you were a pro-baseliner.
> > > zi'o was not around at the time, and I still don't really accept zi'o even
> > > if I can vaguely understand it when used
> >
> >tu'o is mo'e zi'o, according to CLL, though according to ma'oste it is
> >mo'ezo'e (it's pretty clear that CLL is right here)
>
> tu'o wasn't around either; it arose when Cowan redesigned MEX, and was not
> considered for any usage outside of pure MEX where it solved a specific
> problem
>
> I think that tu'o is ambiguous between mo'ezo'e and mo'ezi'o in its
> definition. In one grammatical context, that of a dummy argument in PN or
> RPN, it seems clearly to be mo'ezi'o. When used as a digit variable in a
> digit string such as retu'o for twenty-something, it is clearly mo'ezo'e
I wasn't aware of the "retu'o" usage.
> >Lojban has unquantified sumti -- "ko'a ce ko'e", for example. So it
> >surprises me that you cannot imagine "lo'i broda" -- or an expression
> >meaning "the set of all broda" -- as unquantified
>
> I define whether it is or is not quantified by whether the syntax allows
> it. I am a pragmatist
As you yourself often rightly say, not everything grammatical is
meaningful. And assuming otherwise can be harmful, as in the present
instance (e.g. it being so hard to refer to the number 2).
--And.