Re: Chassel's alternative translations

[David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!UUNET.UU.NET!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!infmx!godzilla!cortesi>]

I sent a version of the following to Bob Chassell and he suggested I
post it as well.

Leave us not forget that the foundation of Lo[jb/gl]an is supposed
to be predicate logic.  If you want a non-English way to look
at the gismu [an excellent idea!], would it not be more productive
to restate them in the formal notation of logic?

Very loosely (I ain't a logician, I just found a Horne clause...)
Instead of:
       jukpa              x1: <cooker/preparer>
                          x2: <food-prepared>
                          x3: <recipe/method-of-food-preparation>

        jukpa(A,B,C) :- cooker(A)
                        & foodstuff(B)
                        & preparation_method(C)
                        & employs_on(A,C,B)

Some of the real logicians could surely do this much better. [please!]
My point is, why struggle to invent a new notation?

Dave Cortesi