Re: delayed response to jimc on indicators (long)

["Arthur W. Protin Jr." (GC-ACCURATE) <cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin>]

Folks,
    Comments on lojbab's comments on jimc's discussion.

First, on emotions: lojbab said
>     Emotions are NOT logical, and pragmatics requires that we have a way to
> express them.  We cannot hobble Lojban by forcing that which is beyond logic
> into a logical mold.
While I think I know what you meant when you said this, it has
been long enough since the last time I made a issue of this to do it
again.  I do not accept this as you wrote it.  Emotions conform to
the definition I found for "logics" in my college math text.  Emotions
simply fail to conform to the rules of classical logic.  Any calculus
for emotions will of course fail to abide by the algebraic properties that
we have come to depend on.  BUT, I firmly believe that emotions have both
axioms and rules of inference, sufficient to be a "logic" of its own.
    However I may quibble about your represention, it is true that lojban
is being tailored to accommodate more conventional and traditional logics
(such as classical logic, Boolean logic, & predicate calculus) and I did
say that any formal logic that models emotions will be incompatable with
the traditional ones.  So I accept that it will hobble lojban (though
mostly thru hobbling its speakers) to require all expressions to be
logical (in the classical sense).

    I agree when lojbab said
>      I don't think we know enough about language to define an ironclad
> classification scheme.
but he goes on to say
>                         Furthermore, to impose such a scheme is to impose an
> unnecessary metaphysical (and possibly cultural) bias on the language.
>From what I've seen debated in Metaphysic journals, I want a bias against
their hogwash.
>                                                                         In
> Lojban, we want only to havve the constraint that it be easier to talk using
> logical constructs than in natural languages, and we've carrried this to the
> extreme of making it easier to talk using logical constructs than non-logical
> constructs.
>      With regard to jimc's concept, we've taken the exact opposite tack.  If
> there are multiple grammatical ways to express something in different natural
> languages, the subject to maintain Lojban's unambiguity, we try to emulate ALL
> of them (so as not to favor any one).  There is a tradeoff here between logic
> and pragmatics; we've favored pragmatics where a construct does not violate
> the logical basis of the language.  If there are contradictory forms in
> different languages, one form has to be marked differently than the other,
> and we've generally chosen to make the simpler metaphysical assumption the
> less marked form.
and if you cannot adequately represent the more complex expressions of
metaphysics, then DON'T WORRY about them.  They are more likely a figment
of some ambiguity of the language that they originated in than an expression
of an idea worthy of my attention. PLEASE DON'T CLUTTER UP LOJBAN to deal
with them.  In other words, if some metaphysics debate sounds nonsensical
in lojban, assume it is nonsensical and lojban is working perfectly.
>                    This has led Lojban to a simple elegance, and we've had
> several serendipitous discoveries wherein a more complicated construct
> falls apart into 1 or 2 simple constructs.
>     The prime virtue in simplicity is easy learnability.
Another of what I think are bad leadins to good ideas:  
    (yes) Ease of learning is (I believe) related to ease of representing
        those ideas commonly expressed by people (where the second "ease"
        is deminished with each additional rule of the language);
    (but) The prime virtue (My big reward) is the ease of representing
        the (hopefully complex) ideas that I want to think about and
        work with (reqardless of the pain of mastering the language).
>                                                           But if we simplify
> the grammar to an extreme, we make complicated ideas hard to say.
I hope I just said that that conclusion is totally undesirable.
>                                                                    This is a
> somewhat different constraint, in terms of a Sapir-Whorf constraint, than
> Lojban's.
And (regretable) I fail to comprehend this last statement.

((
    For those of you I may have offended, you may flame at me personally
    but use this mail list only if you want a soap box to preach to everyone.
    I did.  If you want me to respond to your flames say so, and I will.
))


Arthur Protin <protin@pica.army.mil>
These are my personal views and do not reflect those of my boss
or this installation.