From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Sep 30 06:34:15 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1ELL1Y-0005JG-W9 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:34:05 -0700 Received: from web81306.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.81]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1ELL1X-0005J9-BS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:34:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 68099 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Sep 2005 13:34:01 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=k4AFDf1tgjgTQjJbyiqjDITwCPuBjCiWEJB9MS9NmKUBYzWRK5eXCFtoM5iK+hBYFXyFXWymhRBesNOakeKx3ePENS9LuZwS2ODnRsd1bKdPQRLNbNNljek5WnGayR4V9crzANKR8soMFzxyoRD1Cjws8DfYMrBz3K9KBe1iP8g= ; Message-ID: <20050930133401.68097.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.34.50] by web81306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:34:01 PDT Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:34:01 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560509291815i425ba5e5g3f02c03b19c13426@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-archive-position: 10682 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 9/29/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > Well, you probably have an advantage on me > for > > doing history, since a large part of my hard > > drive that Linux took out was my records for > > those earlier discussions. > > Everything relevant is publicly accessible on > the internet > (which is not to say that it is always easy to > find) except > for that recent private exchange we had. I > don't have much > kept in my computer, all of my writing in or > about Lojban > is out there in cyberspace. The advantage I may > have is > that if we are discussing what I did or did not > do, or how I > used certain word, or which word I used for > something, > then I have a better chance of recalling > correctly. If we > were discussing your usage you'd have the > advantage. Well, this historical stuff can become a hindrance to discussing what is important. I have tried to get information out of the material on the net but the search engines do not find for me even things I know are there (since I have them also in my files), so I have little hope of finding things that I do not know where are. > > Not that it actually > > matters in the long run whether it was as > > accepted or used as I remember. the > discussions > > on which it was based and the formulations of > are > > as they were presented at various times in > our > > more recent discussions -- where it was > described > > (described by you, yes, never by me) So far as I can find, you never disabused me of this notion I had (still have, come to that), though you did occasionally say that you did not participate in some part of what I remembered as the history. > > as the previous standard in various ways and > was > > clearly not CLL. And, of course, the whole is > > laid out in the cited wiki page. > > But did that page ever constitute a consensus > of more > than one? Well, I presented it as a summary of a position that I took to have had at one time at least three consenting members -- yourself included, to be sure, apparently incorrectly. In any case, it is not just my invention so far as I can tell. And, again, this historical discussion is divereting from the substantial issue. > > > I can't "go back" to a place I never left. > > > > Well, I will not cite personal conversations, > > Please do cite whatever you want from me, I > don't > remember saying anything in that discussion I > wouldn't > say in public. I'm quite certain have not > changed my > position. > > >but > > they did leave me with the impression that > you > > were now falling back to the smaller > "species" > > interpretation. > > I don't really know what the 'smaller "species" > interpretation' > is, so I can't comment on that. I don't think I > have ever > understood the labels you keep coming up with > for my > position, but it is you who keeps changing the > labels, not > my position that changes. The labels have changed for a variety of reasons 1) I find a new facet of what you are proposing (it may always have been there, but it comes clearly into focus only later -- possibly from a new example or something that you say about one of my proposed solution to the mystery) 2) one proposed model having failed, I try a new model to see if it will work better 3) some new information from outside comes in that casts the problem in a better light (the McKay book on plural quantification and the types of predication was the clearest case of that) 4) some of the implications of an old name seem to be interfering with understanding what the model means and some other word seems to work better. On this, I have stepped back (in a reversal) to "species" from "-hood," as it is not clear just whjat properties are actally involved (or even whether it is properties rather than some othe form of abstraction -- it doesn't matter except in how the final explication is phrased; the pattern of explication remains the same). I think that perhaps the same thing is working for you: you drop the Mr.Mr. talk for fairly long stretches because it tend to lead the discussion off into that murky metaphysical muck, which is not strictly relevant to what you have in mind (always assuming that you have something in mind other than a set of sentences which you think ought ot have a certain meaning). > > Even that was a bit hard to get > > out of the official description but was a > > possibility, but the Mr.Mr. interp is harder > > still. And -- at least in the version that > was > > most recently going round -- it does prevent > the > > carefully constructed system that allowed > {lo} > > finally to be workable in at least some kind > of > > logic. > > You don't have to use that way of describing > things if > it doesn't sit well with you. Your best bet is > to ignore > all descriptions and concentrate on the usage > and the > examples. As has turned up many times, the examples are not very useful without contexts and clear translations (which also require context usually). {lo cinfa cu citka lo bakni} can mean any number of things (and hence essentially nothing) in isolation. If it is clearly a report of what is going on or did on some occasion, it means one thing; if it is clearly a generalization about lions or cows, it means another; if it just laying out a possibility, it means yet something else again. And so on. And an explication of what {lo cinfa} means needs to cover all of these -- and whatever else comes along. It is the more remote cases that are the most interesting usually: your {mi djica lo cinfa}, to stick with the current vocabulary, reveals (as nothing else does that I can recall) the peculiar nature of {lo cinfa} relative to the other types of sumti in the language (I mean the {lo} series, not just the word {lo} -- so the contrast is with the {le} series and variables primarily) -- if all uses are to be encompassed in a single explication (as seems to be part of what "logical language" is about. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.