Message-Id: <199310152025.AA20514@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 1993 16:23:04 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: PHILOSOPHY/TECH: place structures and metaphysical parsimony
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I cannot see going throught the language and eliminating places that
> reflect current physical knowledge concpets simply because those
> concepts weren't present at some earlier day, but I'm also sure that
> "zi'o" isn't really a satisfactory way to create them either.  Jorge has
> mentioned the possibility of magical disappearance, which I might buy -
> it fits my chaotic attitude towards the "science" of how to
> place-structure a lujvo (though I admit it seems incongruous coming from
> Jorge, whom I thought prone to maximally fat lujvo based on his earlier
> comments).

Just to clarify, what I said was:

> In any case, any method to introduce zi'o in a lujvo will give
> ugly results, and I almost prefer magical disappearance, to the
> cumbersome zi'o.

Not at all incongruous with my position of strongly disliking magical
disappearance, which by the way, does not make me in any way prone to
maximally fat lujvo.

I prefer lujvo to have as few components as possible, and as few places as
is warranted by the places of the component gismu. I don't like places
that disappear simply because they don't match the preconceived concept.
I don't think this makes lujvo particularly fat, since many places
are removed anyway because of becoming filled.

Jorge