From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Feb 26 17:31:45 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 27 Feb 2003 01:31:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 26385 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 01:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 01:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 01:31:45 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AA7F47026E; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:31:43 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:31:56 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >My solution (to be refined and what-not): >Collective: loi [so'a/su'eci'ino] finprcarka >Substance: loi [ci'ipa] finprcarka >Kind: [tu'o lo finprcarka] => lo'ei carka (new LAhE, but >paraphrasable as normal individual sumti with quantification turned >off) >Any: either Propositionalism (what Lojban does now --- prenex >of embedded clause), or Kind, depending on the selbri; [fi'u ro loi >finprcarka] (in the right contexts). >The Collective/Substance distinction is fully optional (so both still >get to be lojbanmasses), and stated on the inner quantifier; but the >distinction can be made if people choose to. (Right now, that just >plain isn't possible.) The Kind ("Mr Shark") is disambiguated from >the lojbanmass by giving it a new LAhE, though it can also be stated >(prolixly) in terms of existing sumti structures and turned off >quantification. (Anything true of the Kind is true of the lojbanmass, >but I'm not convinced the converse is true.) The Any problem (how to >say Any shark as distinct from A shark in the completely general >case) admits of several solutions, none perfect, although we're now >putting more thought into it; when we go into non-existing entities, >we add something like {tu'o lo se ka co'e} or something (to be >thrashed out), as distinct from {lo co'e} (which commits to existence >of the referent; And, this was the coup John and I pulled on you in >NYC.) I really like this. I don't completely grok the problem, but at this point I do understand that there is one. However, I feel that although the baseline is unclear, I feel like usage has 'felt right' and am therefore very supportive of backward-compatibility on loi. This would use loi where I would expect, and not where I wouldn't, but it would also be more clearly explained. And now, getting into the trivialties, I would prefer finprcoke to finprcarka - because 'shark' comes from the mayan 'xoc' (pronounced like lojban cok).