Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:51:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802140051.TAA20091@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rick Nylander Sender: Lojban list From: Rick Nylander Subject: Re: perversity squared X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 80446aaba5d93890936a9175c96d8d58 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 17 10:14:16 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab to Rick to lojbab: >>Lojbab wrote: >>>Indeed the decision to baseline the place structures AT ALL, took place >>>over my objection. My intent was that the semantics should be totally >>>fluid. the reality is that the place structures as is constrain the >>>meanings of the words. >> [snip] >>It would seem that any language, and in particular lojban, which has >>some kind of ordering defined (e.g. subject-verb-object, or X1 broda X2 >>X3) has to start with some agreement as to ordering of components and >>what those components mean in a given order (e.g. hitter hits hittee), >>or communication is impossible. > >Yes and no. Certainly the ordering of components and their number for that >matter have been defined and indeed baselined in Lojban. What those >components actually mean is necssarily vague to some extent (insert Cowan's >maxim about infinite verbosity being the price otherwise). [mega-snip] I'm glad that you gave the _short_ summary :-) What attracted my attention was, specifically, your statement about not wanting to baseline the place structures AT ALL (your emphasis). Here's what I think you meant in your original statement: You did not want to _baseline_ the place structures - meaning you did not want to set them in stone. But you did agree that the intended place structures be documented so that everyone could agree, roughly, on how places would be used. Your fear was that putting the label "baseline" on the documentation fixed them in a form that precluded the kind evolution and refinement you describe. You wanted to leave the meanings of the places sufficiently vague to encourage said refinement toward uniquely lojbanic meanings. Rik.