Message-Id: <m0pTbGG-0000Q9C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 1994 13:58:09 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cukta
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3002
Lines: 69

lojbab:
> 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.

I know, but I'm not really criticising the textbook. I prefer the meaning
one gets from the examples than the one suggested by the comment of
the gi'uste.


> 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.

I think this should be avoided as much as possible in the lessons. People
learn from the examples much more than the point that is being illustrated
(at least I do).

>
> 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.

I don't think it's the same case. If you say {le nanmu}, it's because what you
are calling a {nanmu} looks like one. What is called {le cukta} in the lessons
is not something that looks like a literary work, (or some other written text),
it's a very physical object.

> 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.

I think one of them has to be changed. I'd prefer it to be the definition.
(If the definition is not to be changed, then leave everything as it is,
and usage will probably force the physical object interpretation anyway,
maybe along with the other. :)

If x1 is not going to be the physical object, I don't see why one
would want a relationship between the author/theme/audience, and the
preserving medium. The first three refer to a work, the last one to a
single copy of that work.

> 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.

You shouldn't do this. If I look for problems I'll find them, be it that they
be there or not. :)

> 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.

Yes, why is everyone so quiet lately?

Jorge

>
> lojbab
>