From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sun Feb 6 22:35:32 1994 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:12:44 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 7 Feb 1994 03:36:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199402070836.AA13883@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8264; Mon, 07 Feb 94 03:34:00 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7988; Mon, 07 Feb 94 03:35:41 EDT Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 03:35:32 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: cukta To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-Status: JL> > I can weasel on the text samples you give, except one. Except that one, JL> > are dealing with "le" cukta. JL> JL> I think this is not fair. If one can't use {lo cukta} in those examples, JL> then they're extremely misleading. The meaning of {cukta} one learns from JL> them is the physical object. I said I was weaseling %^) The dialogs were written long before we debated the meaning. They were not intended to teach semantics of vocabulary (you could easily substitute some other 'correct' value for the physical object) and not cause problems in the textbook rewrite - this WAS a draft, remember. And yes, I feel no qualms in using "le" to weasel on a semantics issue. Indeed, I suspect MOST people will use vocabulary inexactly and will need to use "le" as a result. I am not sure whether this is good; probably not. But if I say "mi viska le nanmu", I do not necessarily wish to claim that I have inspected the genitalia and/or genes of the thing I see to ensure that it is indeed human, adult, and male. "le" objectifies something based on some apparent principles. A physical book PROBABLY contains a 'work' - I don't need to check if I use "le". There may be a more limited or more accurate claim that I could make, but language is always a matter of convenience. Now if you successfully argue that a) there is misleading here and b) there is a better definition or c) there is a better example that can be used in the textbook - then, I have no problems with changing either the definition or the text. But the stuff was written without a lot of care to semantics, and you will no doubt find many other cases of such sloppiness if you look hard (do we smell some sumti-raising???? probably...), so I welcome you looking further for problems as well. So let us see what the rest of the community says about "cukta". Bob Chassell, Sylvia Rutiser, John Cowan among other son the list were present in the debate and are especially welcome to weigh in, and I will also check with Nora. lojbab