Re: logical gaffs

["Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>]

Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1351

> > ...  I would imagine this kind of thing [asking for filled-in places] =
> > would again be easier in Lojban.
>
> Why?  We can ask "to what end?" in English just as easily as in Lojban, =
> can't we?  You aren't the first person to make this observation, and I'm =
> curious about the reasoning behind it.
>

I'm sure I've seen the same point raised before in other Lojban
literature, but I don't have a cite handy.  I've always believed
that this would be a great advantage of Lojban, too, because it's
/not/ always that easy to ask for elided sumti in English, and
sometimes you even have to argue that a sumti exists.  "Need" is
a great example: in English you'd have to ask "to prevent what
undesirable consequence of its absence?", and the word is usually
used as if need by itself were meaningful without that, because
the English language doesn't have a built-in implication like
Lojban does.

Even the fact that to create words one has to analyse all that
they imply to determine their place structure is a great aid to
clarity and consistency.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC