From pycyn@aol.com Sat Mar 03 11:49:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 3 Mar 2001 19:49:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 81421 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2001 19:49:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2001 19:49:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2001 19:49:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.67.107b11eb (9726) for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:49:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <67.107b11eb.27d2a4c9@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:49:29 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Meaningless talk To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_67.107b11eb.27d2a4c9_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5702 --part1_67.107b11eb.27d2a4c9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/2/2001 8:07:04 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > {fi leka morsi fe ra}. I suppose {ra} refers to the testafiability criterion. Okay, can we agree on some rules here. First of all, what is going to count as proving that the criterion is dead? I gather that the fact that all theoretical physics is meaningless will not help nor will the fact that the criterion itself is meaningless won't work. So what is left? But perhaps we need to look at the earlier question: what kind of test does the criterion -- as you understand it -- call for? Right, the law is a suggested description of good behavior and is not observationally real (i.e., can be seen) , so it doesn't fit testing experience. I am not sure where "the complete thing" fits in, there is no place for either it or the longer phrase in which it is presumably embedded. I note in passing that the law is beginning to look a lot like those unreal things and possible worlds that you were so hot to deny a while back -- a shift, I hope. Has anyone offered you the concept of the end of law? It seems nearer your position than that of anyone else involved. Sorry, I really do try to be reasonable, but I am also painfully literal when I start translations and, thus, without some better clues in the text to guide me, I may end up with mush. {ca'e} is an evidential, meaning "on the evidence of my definition" or however you want to put it. In particular, it does not *claim* something as a definition any more than {za'a} means that I am seeing it now. That's what I thought you meant; the point is that it is not what you said. Which am I to believe? Here I supposed "meant" and followed up on it. But when what you said is about a touchy issue, it is dangerous to assume that what I think you meant on the basis of what you said is what you actually meant. Then I stick with "said" to be safe. <"We assert X iff C." iff means the truth values of both statements must agree. Other than some regrettable open-ended-ness about the states of C, the assertion holds.> Which one? "the true value of 'We assert that X' = the truth value of 'C'" or "We assert that the truth value of 'X' equals the truth value of 'C'"? Since the English is at least as ambiguous in this respect as the almost Lojban, we don't know what to say. --part1_67.107b11eb.27d2a4c9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/2/2001 8:07:04 PM Central Standard Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:

<mi talsa do'o le pu'u cipra le ka morsi ra>

{fi leka morsi fe ra}. I suppose {ra} refers to the testafiability criterion.
Okay, can we agree on some rules here. First of all, what is going to count
as proving that the criterion is dead? I gather that the fact that all
theoretical physics is meaningless will not help nor will the fact that the
criterion itself is meaningless won't work. So what is left? But perhaps we
need to look at the earlier question: what kind of test does the criterion --
as you understand it -- call for?

<mi frasku fu le do sevzicipra selcpedu fe le si'o le flalu cu selstidi
skicu le xamgu seltra .i fy. na selzgana fatci tu'a le mulno .iseni'ibo na
mapti le li'i cipra>

Right, the law is a suggested description of good behavior and is not
observationally real (i.e., can be seen) , so it doesn't fit testing
experience. I am not sure where "the complete thing" fits in, there is no
place for either it or the longer phrase in which it is presumably embedded.
I note in passing that the law is beginning to look a lot like those unreal
things and possible worlds that you were so hot to deny a while back -- a
shift, I hope.

<mi to'e cpatu'i le si'o co'u flalu>
Has anyone offered you the concept of the end of law? It seems nearer your
position than that of anyone else involved.

<Almost all of your English translations seem to intentionally fall as far
as possible from anything that fits the original context or common sense.>
Sorry, I really do try to be reasonable, but I am also painfully literal when
I start translations and, thus, without some better clues in the text to
guide me, I may end up with mush.

<Further, ca'e means "I define", not "as evidenced by my definition".>
{ca'e} is an evidential, meaning "on the evidence of my definition" or
however you want to put it. In particular, it does not *claim* something as
a definition any more than {za'a} means that I am seeing it now.

<A less annoying English translation might be "Stronger than 'pe'i' or
'srana'".>
That's what I thought you meant; the point is that it is not what you said.
Which am I to believe? Here I supposed "meant" and followed up on it. But
when what you said is about a touchy issue, it is dangerous to assume that
what I think you meant on the basis of what you said is what you actually
meant. Then I stick with "said" to be safe.

<"We assert X iff C."

iff means the truth values of both statements must agree.

Other than some regrettable open-ended-ness about the states of C, the
assertion holds.>

Which one? "the true value of 'We assert that X' = the truth value of 'C'"
or
"We assert that the truth value of 'X' equals the truth value of 'C'"? Since
the English is at least as ambiguous in this respect as the almost Lojban, we
don't know what to say. --part1_67.107b11eb.27d2a4c9_boundary--