From nicholas@uci.edu Wed Sep 12 16:56:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 12 Sep 2001 23:56:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 82536 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2001 23:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Sep 2001 23:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2001 23:55:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29424; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10666 A few further reactions: cu'u la lojbab. >A point I have been trying to stress whenever I say "let usage >decide". Usage will not have decided while there are still only a handful >of people competent enough at the easy stuff that they are willing to essay >using the more complex or abstract ones. And I daresay there are a lot of >people who might USE the language more if they could successfully pull >themselves away from the endless arguments ABOUT the language. I will say this again: The -ata/-ita controversy in Esperanto establishes --- clearly, to me --- that when controversy arises in a conlang as to what a construction means, the usual result is that people simply avoid that construction. Usage decides *not* to use it. I can already tell you that I'm now hesitant to use {ka} without {ce'u}; once bitten, twice shy. So I will continue not to have such great faith in some blind, invisible-hand, working-for-the-common-good-and-not-once-being-led-astray Usage. Usage often works out in ways you don't expect. See soi vo'a. And your last sentence is infuriating. If you didn't want people to spend 16 years debating the language, you should have forestalled that by giving clearer definitions 16 years ago. And is absolutely right about the 25%: you cannot protest this outcome. (And if you wanted Lojban to be only about Sapir-Whorf and getting it speakable, and not about logical quibbling and rigour, then I am yet again forced to ask And's question: Why did you pick a logic-based conlang to start with? You could have dispensed with all the logic quibbling, and still gotten your Sapir-Whorf effects, if you'd worked with Laadan.) And who precisely do you think *is* being held back from writing Lojban masterpieces by grammatical quibbling? Me? And? pc? xod? maikyl.? xorxes? That's an utterly empty claim (unless, of course, you believe in quantity over quality. I don't think we'll learn more from 100 malglico translations than one piece of solidly Lojbanic text, though.) I should think a far more serious problem is that there is relatively little comment on one another's Lojban, when people do write. It was not so in '92; yes, the language is better defined now --- but I don't think the need for quality control will *ever* be over, or that *anyone*'s Lojban is going to be too good for review. We all sure know mine isn't. >Only in accord with some philosophies. Other philosophies can reconcile >the irreconcilable. If I want Newspeak, I know where to find it. :-) >I refuse to negotiate meanings of Lojban words in English because I think >it is impossible to do so, and probably undesirable to try (and >unfortunately at this point I don't have time to do it by USING them in >Lojban (talking about them in Lojban won't necessarily improve on talking >about them in English). If you don't want to take part in that venture, or lend it your approval, that's your right. I have taken part in that venture, I have an opinion of how {ka} and {si'o} works; and I'll see you in the marketplace of ideas. The longer you don't use your version, of course, the less chance it has of prevailing. >>Once {ce'u} was introduced into the picture, he >>contends, {ka} is about properties, not qualities. >That is not what the cmavo list says, nor what the gismu list says when it >refers to qualities and ka in the same place, and it is not a requirement >of the *grammar* that ka be solely about ce'u. That is a usage issue; it >can be left to usage. The cmavo list and the gismu list don't say much of anything. Furthermore, the cmavo list and the gismu list were written in ignorance of {ce'u}; *obviously* they don't speak of properties. The reference grammar steers {ka} away from quality, and towards property, by implying that every {ka} has a {ce'u}. This means, ipso facto, that the meaning of {ka} has changed. You can disagree with this, and say that your understanding of {ka} must remain --- and as a result, that {leka mi xendo} must still mean "my kindness", since it can be taken as not having an implicit {ce'u} in there at all. A considerable body of Lojbanists now thinks you're wrong, however, and that {ka} now means something different to what it used to. You can resent and reject being railroaded into anything; fine. Be prepared to lose this one anyway, though; we now know that in some contexts, {ka} is property and not quality, unequivocally (inasmuch as the terms mean anything distinct at all); and to forestall the natural further assumption that it is property *everywhere* is going to take you some work. Fiat may not make you accept {ka} is always property; but fiat is also not going to make me accept that {ka} isn't always property. And the usage of those who are making that further assumption is now likely to stick around. Btw, the notion that {ce'u} doesn't fit in {dicra} is, to put it mildly, puzzling: lenu mi tavla do cu dicra lenu do gunka kei leka ce'u xi pa toljundyri'a do ce'u xi re This is just a property with two slots, relating the interruptor and the interruptee. This is no different to {simxu}. (And before anyone starts rolling their eyes about the subscripts, how else would you make sure the two ce'u are not coreferential?) Are you saying interrupting qualities are *not* expressible as bridi relating interruptor and interruptee? Again, a real counterexample, please, not phantoms. If you're going to pass such a no-confidence motion on the power of Lojban to express relations in the world, it had better be a good one. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing I REJECT {gumri} nicholas@uci.edu (Lojban Wiki, Resurrected Gismu)