Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <519BB664.7010505@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 20:01:08 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban
References: <dee20715-897b-40fd-b3b1-292017750384@googlegroups.com> <20130520214048.GA3114@samsa.fritz.box> <CA+gZtgKmsBFMhcSuH4L4NMLSvq-u6u101x+brNT1eAwFDQFU9A@mail.gmail.com> <20130520221213.GB3114@samsa.fritz.box> <CA+gZtgKukqKxw6xcnA2kMbSd5cTp4PCkc+pq+-QwgLPCSFCR2Q@mail.gmail.com> <f03b55fef408e1a5c307cedec84557f5@plasmatix.com> <519B59B4.8020404@lojban.org> <ff1a6f01f9f4c084647a58733eeaa1eb@plasmatix.com> <CAMKwHj3psDe1bXsjQo9QPJt9vYohkrLT1ST1oFrYUtAbMsyiZg@mail.gmail.com> <519B8B71.90800@gmx.de> <CAMKwHj1-RUJy1JYYemDiCxbOe0fmCzuoWeOO9VHPOPtpOxTT_Q@mail.gmail.com> <519B9D34.3010704@gmx.de> <1369156225.81761.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1369156225.81761.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> Herein is the crux.  What is Lojban?  It is surely not the language off
> CLL or much like it;

Surely not.

> it is not that modified by xorlo (any of the dozen
> or so xorlos, not counting those by xorxes himself).

xorlo is but a tiny fraction of what sets apart CLL-Lojban from Now-Lojban.

> Honesty would have
> it extracted from all the text around, assuming that could be collected,
> but that is probably not a consistent corpus and certainly would not
> meet the requirements of being a loglang.  Even the corpus of one
> Lojbanist is somewhat iffy.  You have two choices: a new
> presecriptivism, which decides all issues and lays down the law in a
> tight program, (OK, three -- we could go back to CLL) or a free-for-all
> building to a new consensus and eventual formalization.

In case of choice number 1, who would decide all the issues and lay down 
the law?

> (In either case, {PA lo broda} is not the same as {PA broda}.)

Right. I wouldn't call them equivalent, since obviously {PA lo broda} is 
quantification over the referent(s) of {lo broda}, while {PA broda} 
never goes through that step. It just happens that there are cases where 
it makes no difference which one you use. When it does make a 
difference, it is often an "anaphoric" use of {lo broda}, sometimes in a 
malgli way (when the speaker unconsciously wants to do what {le} 
actually does). The difference between the two expressions (or the lack 
thereof) hinges to some degree at least on how {lo broda} is 
conceptualized; is it a group of indeterminate number or is it {lo xo 
na'i broda} (that is, the concept of number just doesn't apply to it 
until you explicitly specify number using an inner quantifier) ?.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.