It is then up to you to translate statements into your system.
I do not have to translate anything because excluded-middle reasoning with all its branches, theorems and proofs of the last 2000 years is already included as a tiny logical sub-system of the infinite grand universe of included-middle reasoning, which includes infinitely many other unique logical systems, exactly as our planet is a sub-system of the solar-system and the solar system is a sub-system of the milky-way... and so on.
If you still don't get it then look at this example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ETtable.pdf
and try to understand that each form in it is a unique logical reasoning.
The excluded-middle reasoning is the (x=2,y=1) form.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your response to the idea that what is called logic (f XOR t) is only a tiny part of a gigantic universe of infinitely many different logical forms, is a normal response to unfamiliar new ideas.
1) Hurkyl tried to reduce this gigantic universe of infinitely many different logical forms to (f XOR t) and failed .
2) I gave a lot of examples that based in this included-middle universe of infinitely many different logical forms, and I showed new interpretations to: Natural numbers, sets, logical forms, infinity, irrational numbers, functions, limit, proof, probablility and more things. They can be found in more then 40 short papers here:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html
and most of them is the result of what I think is the most important thing in any living language, which is a dialog, mostly between Hurkyl you and me.
Recently I discovered that included-middle point of view on Math language is not a one man show.
Shortly speaking, I am not alone and misunderstood as I was in the last 2 years.
Some of the communities that developing an included-middle point of view can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0012/0012007.pdf
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/
http://www.quantonics.com/How_to_Become_A_Student_of_Quantonics.html
http://www.quantonics.com/Acronyms_Used_In_Quantonics.html#SOM
Here is some example that I gave in the past, which clearly shows how two oppsites preventing/defining each other with no-contradiction:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/BW-BFC.pdf