Return-Path: Message-Id: <9205202200.AA02149@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Wed May 20 20:15:51 1992 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: addendum on naysaying X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 20 20:15:51 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN We discussed the proposal last night, and Sylvia's opinion was especially sought as a Lojbanist who has already learned the language. The response (Sylvia speak up to disagree or add more) was ambivalent, but she hit upon the main reason why I currently remain undecidedly negative. She indicated that this sounds like a change that would be proposed by those who are forever trying the fiddle with the language and make it a little better rather than those who want the langauge to be completed, documented, and turned over to real users who might then make their own changes, but in a more natural mode. It was also clear that, though we attempted to make the negation paper clear, the differences between contradictory and contrary negation are not that well understood by Sylvia, and thus by extension probably by most other Lojbanists who are learning/have learned the language. If we add a disticntion that people do not understand, we are more strongly obligated to teach it so that everyone understands it. As the language stands now, people learn features individually, and the role of nai in each feature is probably learned quite well in the process of learning that feature. It is only when you try to generalize nai over the whole language that the incon- sistency appears, and the plausibility of useful change. Another point raised was that there are few if any identified things to be said in Lojban that cannot be clearly said with the langauge as it currently is. It is already recognized that not everything theoretically sayable can be carried in the tense system - it is a powerful subcomponent of the langauge, but it is not a full language in itself (likewise attitudinals, which are evenn more powerful). Any complex tense that cannot be said without a nai/nei d distinction can almost certainly said by breaking up the tense into multiple tense phrases, or by breaking up the sentence into two sentences. This is indeed what happens in any language when complexity exceeds the resolving power of the language. Lojban has a higher resolving power than most languages. On the other hand, Sylvia noted that one of the neat features of Lojban tenses is their ability to be analytically stacked one atop the other, and the current situation puts some theoretical limit on this. I find Jim Carter's comment interesting by the way. Since when, Jim, are you willing to tolerate a structure in the language which does not have a fully analyzed semantics? %^) lojbab