From xod@thestonecutters.net Wed Feb 26 07:54:31 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 15:54:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 40642 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 15:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 15:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 15:54:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18o3t7-0005pZ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:54:29 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18o3sq-0005oJ-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:54:12 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18o3sX-0005lZ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:53:53 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QFrr254066 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:53:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:53:53 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] loi will be with you shortly (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: <20030226030837.GA18158@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20030226102248.K53713-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4156 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:49:30PM -0500, Craig wrote: > > >is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with > > >{loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it. > > > > I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK appears and > > we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that doesn't demonstrate > > that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any change to the language that > > doesn't solve a problem which is either obvious or explained in the > > proposal; the BPFK should not act lightly. > > But, if the jposkepre have been able to put much effort into {loi}, then I'm > > sure there is a problem and that their proposal will explain it to us. > > There is no problem with loi. I've been on jboske and saw all the > complaints: basically what it comes down to is "Lojban-masses > aren't either 'collectives' or 'substances' and therefore are > broken". This argument is broken; it is not a foregone conclusion > that lojban must directly map onto english or natlang concepts. > Lojbanmasses behave as something distinct from substances and > collectives, covering some features of both, without causing any > difficulties or problems. I agree that lojban concepts don't need to map to non-lojban ones. However, this one was the result of actual confusion, as opposed to any deep, insightful revelation about the fundamental unity of substances and collectives. You'll note there are precious few, if any, such deep concepts in Lojban which are so difficult to map to English. That's more evidence that this was a mistake. And when you ponder quantification over the mixed definition, it blows up in your face. I don't consider myself bound by or beholden to maintaining broken definitions used by earlier waves of Lojban newbies whose clumsy attempts were prematurely enshrined as canonical. No one has ever surpassed kindergarten level fluency, and we won't end up with anything more if we permit those existing scribblings to circumscribe us. In deference to a principle of least confusion, we should remain as close to corpus as possible, and I am certainly not advocating anything other. Now, in terms of solutions, we've kicked around many, many solutions on jboske. I find mine to be the most elegant of them all, and so simple that I feel I can reveal it here outside the quarantine chamber of jboske. * Use loi for collectives, and lo for substances. * Collective is defined as a group with at least one Emergent Property. This means a property held by the group that an individual lacks. The canonical example is the 3 guys carrying the piano. * There are 2 ways to treat a substance using lo. Take water. One is to consider all the water in the universe as a unit, and consider a glass of water as a small piece. The other is to treat any "piece" of water, be it a glass or a river, as an individual. I don't have a preference. -- Seventy-two city councils, including Philadelphia, Austin, Chicago, Baltimore and Cleveland have passed anti-war resolutions.