Re: Linguistics journals

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Chris Bogart wrote:

> Could Lojban be used, if not "studied" as such, by a linguist/logician as
> a tool for discussing and illustrating some fine points of linguistic
> logic?  Not writing *in* lojban, just giving examples in Lojban.  An
> abstract discussion of how abstraction, quantification, and argument
> raising (to pick three things out of the hat) would be less readable and
> more prone to error than one that analyzed example sentences with {nu},
> {ci}, and {tu'a} in them.  In other words, maybe Lojan could be useful in
> the same way math notation or normal predicate calculus are useful.

Don't you think linguists/logicians already HAVE such notational schemes
in place, which are accepted generally within their own communities? Why
would they want to learn a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE just so they can re-invent
the wheel? :)

Geoff