Re: For And's pleasure

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

> Here is the promised sample of TLI Loglan "logic".  I give first the
> English that is intended to be translated.  I note of course what appears
> to be an indirect question which makes it even more  relevant.

I agree with Jorge that it needn't be read as an indirect
question.

> "And worst of all it was impossible to say what you meant.  The semantics
> of Xlang were as slippery as a greased eel."
>
> . i da poi xlalymau ro de du lenu ro nu daxivo cusku daximu poi sinxa daxixa
> poi termukti daxivo [kei] pu nalcumki
> .i le selsinxyciste be xy pu se sakli du'i loi sligygrasygacri finpranguili

I don't see what's so mabla logji about it. "Daxipa" is extremely
ugly, but necessitated by the language which provides for only
3 (or 5 in Loglan, you say) morphologically simplex bindable
variables.

I assume that

    poi xlalymau ro de du

is

    poi xlalymau ro de ku`o du

All in all, it doesn't seem at all egregious. At the same time,
I don't see why it is a "logical gem"; it seems pretty
straightfoward. (My comments pertain to the first sentence; I agree
with Jorge on the second sentence.)

> Do they handle indirect questions in any interesting or useful way?
> (I note BTW that I spotted instances where they use the equivalent of
> lenu for "the fact that", so they seem to equate nu and du'u sometimes
> while using nu for events at other times.)

Using "le/lo nu" for "the fact that" is not necessarily a bad
thing. It could even be a good thing.

--And