On 21 Oct 2015 14:15, "Gleki Arxokuna" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 2015-10-19 0:40 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>: > > > I think you've really proved my point, Gleki: you're probably the world's > > only human being who can interpret that passage from John Clifford as > > meaning that there is no meaningful sense in which Lojban is based on > > predicate logic. > > > > okay one more quotation from the reference grammar itself: > > "There are many more aspects of logic that I neither fully understand nor > feel competent to explain, neither in abstract nor in their Lojban > realization. Lojban was designed to be a language that makes predicate > logic speakable, and achieving that goal completely will need to wait for > someone who understands both logic and Lojban better than I do. I can only > hope to have pointed out the areas that are well-understood (and by > implication, those that are not)." > > If Lojban were based on predicate logic making tha tlogic speakble would be > trivial. But that it *was* designed doesn't mean that by the time the > reference grammar was complete it proved to be such. > > Of course, if you can prove that Lojban is indeed a speakable predicate > logic then it'd be just awesome. But I couldn't find any such proofs. We don't disagree about Lojban and its relation to logic. I intervened in the thread only because you were interpreting the meaning of "based on" in a way that was both eccentrically narrow and, without your interlocutors necessarily realizing it, different from their more everyday and latitudinous interpretation of the term. Your subsequent messages have described the ways Lojban both is and isn't based on PL, and I expect that in consequence all your readers now have a fairly clear understanding of the relationship between Lojban and logic. --And.