From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Aug 22 07:27:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 14:27:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 24046 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 14:23:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 14:23:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 14:23:01 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:01:33 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:28:26 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:27:51 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9911 >>> Nick NICHOLAS 08/21/01 11:46pm >>> #... On the other hand, I now see in the refgramm that "le" is defined as #+definite -veridical, and not as I remembered it, +/-definite -veridical. I don't have my Woldy handy, but my understanding is that LE is +specific +/-definite -veridical. +definite and -definite are indicated by le bi'unai and le bi'u respectiviely. #This now looks like a misconstrual on my part, again because of=20 #antiquated understanding of the language (previous teaching material,=20 #to my recollection, emphasised non-veridicality to the exclusion of #definiteness.)=20 This is definitely true. This shift came about as a result of a huge debate that raged in the mid 90s. (Although the LE/LO distinction antedates my involvement with Lojban, I am convinced that the *original* distinction must have been primarily one of specificity (or conceivably definiteness) and not one of veridicality, the veridicality being, I believe, an incidental property that through incomplete understanding was elevated to a defining property.) #{ce'u} is ultimately alien to all 'Tweeners but xorxes, who was the only=20 #'Tweener still around in 1997.) I have been around uninterruptedly since 91, except for maybe a total of=20 six months over the years when I never found time to read all my mail. I joined after you and Mark but before Xorxes. I can't remember whether it was before or after Ivan. #> Remember that some of us haven't yet gotten that far. To the extent tha= t #> you wish the new book to set and add to standards for the language, you #> will have to be prepared for it to take a while. Cowan's refgrammar #> existed as draft chapters for 3 years before it was settled enough to be #> published, and we STILL made a lot of last minute corrections and people #> are still finding errata. Your ce'u chapters haven't existed more than = a #> couple of months. # #So that I understand this, there is a real possibility that it will take #years rather than months for the content of the lessons to be reviewed and #finalised. Yes? I have to say Nick, that it seems to me to be no bad thing if they're publi= shed in nonfinal form asap online, but in paper form only after a fair while. Th= at gives people time to read and digest it and for minor changes to be made. I mightn't have held that view originally, but it has turned out that the L= essons do contain controversial stuff. #(b) "my kindness" is plausibly taken as being a property of me. =3D {le ka ce'u xendo kei be mi}, under a usage proposed but not endorsed by me. #If I leave it to usage before now, I document your understanding of {ka}, #because that's how {ka} was used until people woke up to {ce'u}. # #If I leave it to usage from this point on, I document the majority #understanding of {ka}, because people are now awake to {ce'u}. # #If I document the standard, the standard is inconsistent (but leans #towards the latter.) # #If I document both approaches, I am airing dirty laundry in public. You're #cool with that. I'm not. I have yielded before, but because the refgramm #seriously leans towards regarding {ka} as an intension in all cases (and #the refgramm author now says it always should, and didn't only because of #confusion), I'm somewhat reluctant to. Once more, I solicit others' #opinions. My opinion, then, is that you should document ka according to the Cowan doctrine, but that the issue of the interpretation of empty places should be silently ignored by using examples with no empty places. #I will go one further. I will (at some point this year) go through all #Lojban I have posted as 'texts', eliminate instances of {ka} with #what I now understand to be filled {ce'u}, post on my website the new #versions, and renounce my former usage. Because I will *not* have my #former usage used as a datapoint in this.=20 Wow. That certainly counts as giving a shit and half! --And.