Lojban and jello-wrestling

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@quetzal.com>]

It's beginning to appear to me that there is insufficient consensus on
Lojban's fundamental logical underpinnings -- which is worrisome considering
this is supposed to be the foundation of Lojban.  When I've gotten into
discussions about what "lo" should mean or whatever, I feel like I'm
jello-wrestling, because there's no firm ground to stand on.  It appears
right now that the only justifications people can make for their arguments
are memories of old conversations and assumptions they've held for a long
time.  I've been trying to get a sense of those things by reading between
the lines in the textbook, draft reference grammar papers, etc., but it's
kind of like detective work.

At some point there will have to be a pretty formal description of how
Lojban does and doesn't map to pred calc, what rules can be used to convert
one bridi to another, what expands to what, etc.  I guess that's what the
logic paper in the reference grammar will do?  I'm not convinced everyone
here is building on the same set of assumptions when discussing what
quantification, massification, veridiciality, etc. really mean in relation
to the rest of the language.  I do think that a few of the key players do
have a clear picture of what's going on.

I think I'll back off for now on the technical discussions, practice my
jboselsku with Jorge and Goran, and let more seasoned Lojbanists battle
these things out, and wait for the draft logic paper before I get involved
again.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~