Re: [engelang] Re: LoCCan3 development ideas.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 03/08/2012 02:37:
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM, And Rosta<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2. Create a loglang that satisfies the key requirement of
> >> unambiguously encoding explicit logical forms in a way that is no
> >> less concise than the corresponding natlang or Lojban sentences
> >> (which are not unambiguous and explicit).
> >
> > How about using only consonants for predicates and vowels and vowel
> > strings (a, e, i..., a'a, a'e ..., a'a'a, ...) as the variables.
> > Hopefully you would rarely need more than five variables at a time. So
> > for example if "r" is the universal quantifier, "mlt" means "x1 is a
> > cat" and "xkr" means "x1 is black", then "ra mlta xkra" means "every
> > cat is black". If "s" is the existential quantifier, "ntrl" means "x1
> > is a natural number" and "flw" means "x1 follows x2", then we have "ra
> > ntrla se ntrle flweka" (where "k" is the argument separator for
> > predicates with two arguments): "For every natural number x, there's a
> > natural number y such that y follows x". If "l" is the quantifier
> > "the", then "la mlta xkra", "the cat is black". Connectives and unary
> > operators such as negation would be of CV form where the vowel is not
> > a variable, so if "je" is "and", we have: "la djna le mrye je prmake
> > prmeka": "John loves Mary and Mary loves John".
>
> You'd want to add some mechanism for omitting the variable when it would
> correspond to Lojban {zo'e}. Since the scheme already allows for the
> omission of terminal arguments (i.e. "love(x,y)" can be "lvake" or "lva"
> with the second argument implicit), one solution would be to have differe=
nt
> versions of the predicate for each possible ordering of the arguments, th=
o
> that's not a very economical use of morphological predicate space: you'd
> need two versions of each dyadic predicate, six of each triadic, 24 of ea=
ch
> tetradic, 120 of each pentadic; and various of the contrasts would often =
be
> redundant (e.g. for a triadic predicate with two implicit args, there'd b=
e a
> redundant two-way choice of predicate; for a triadic predicate with no
> implicit args, there'd be a redundant six-way choice of predicate). There
> are more economical schemes, but I think they'd all entail using up a bit=
 of
> predicate space in order to provide the marking sufficient to allow for
> implicit arguments.

Is "zo'e" consistent with the aims of the project? I was thinking all
arguments had to be explicit, and I would expect most predicates would
have only one argument, many would have two, and very few three or
more arguments.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected]=20
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/