Message-Id: <m0r9epK-00007CC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 21 Nov 1994 19:50:23 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: small universe consequences
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 19 Nov 94 09:57:52 EST.)
              <9411191457.AA03193@hill.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Content-Length: 1285
Lines: 31

Bob:
>    Suppose we're writing our grammar of Lojban. What meaning does the
>    grammar give to "Lo mlatu cu xekri"? Part of the story is "Ex: mlatu(x)
>    & xekri(x)", & the rest is the definition of what it takes to be
>    a mlatu or to be a xekri. Now I ask you: Where in the grammar do
>    we have to discuss whether you've bet $1000000 that there is a
>    black cat?
>
> In the part of the grammar that says you have to consider context.

This is the crux. I don't think the grammar says you have to
consider context. General principles of communication, not language-
specific, say you have to consider context. The grammar is independent
of context.

In theoretical linguistics we can agree to differ on such issues, but
in the case of an artificial language project whose most laudable
goal is to write a reasonably fully-specified grammar we can't achieve
the goal if we don't agree how to define it.

>    It is the grammar that says LO is nonspecific ...
>
> This is false.  The grammar does not say anything about this.  It says
> that {lo} is followed by a sumti_tail_111 and a gap_450.

I mean the grammar as in "rules of the language system" not as in
"descriptions of the language system specified and written up to
date". I agree the word is ambiguous.

---
And