Message-Id: <199602232255.RAA06624@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 22 Feb 1996 06:57:50 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Cowan denounces "je'a xi <number>"
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length: 1429

>John:
>> > > 3)  That I do not and will not propose assigning meaning (fuzzy or
>> > >     otherwise) to "je'a xi <number>" (it's already grammatical).
>> I should have said "will not propose an assigned meaning for"
>> rather than "will not propose assigning meaning to".
>
>Why will you not propose an assigned meaning for {jea xi}?
>[I'm not lobbying for one; I'm  just curious.]

John may have his own reasons, but the bottom line is that when we have
an undefined expression and no obvious conventional meaning, some people
think that we should not try to assign a convention, just because it is there.
It thus becomes a fleible tool, to be used like tanru, with the option to
assign a meaning later if there turns out to be overwhelming need for one.

Since the refgrammar i prescriptive, proposing an assigned meaning therein
is the same as dictating a meaning - once there it is perhaps forever cast
in concrete as part of the language.  Cowan and I have to be careful not to
have our central role eliminate plurality of options, and we also must
avoid having mere proposals get into the refgrammar unless heavily marked as
such.

I think that to a considerable extent, everything that Cowan and I talk about
on Lojban List is with an eye to including it in the almost cmplete book.
We don;t have time to play games and make proposals that are not seriously
planned for includion in the book if not objected to.

lojbab