From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 12 09:46:36 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 12 Sep 2001 16:46:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 75082 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2001 16:46:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Sep 2001 16:46:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2001 16:46:00 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.77.1af820ac (4419)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <77.1af820ac.28d0eb2d@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:45:33 EDT
Subject: lojbabbitry a (ce'u)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_77.1af820ac.28d0eb2d_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10660

           
--part1_77.1af820ac.28d0eb2d_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/10/2001 6:25:29 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
lojbab@lojban.org writes:




> A point I have been trying to stress whenever I say "let usage=20
> decide".  Usage will not have decided while there are still only a handfu=
l=20
> of people competent enough at the easy stuff that they are willing to ess=
ay=20
> using the more complex or abstract ones.  And I daresay there are a lot o=
f=20
> people who might USE the language more if they could successfully pull=20
> themselves away from the endless arguments ABOUT the language.
>=20




<Membership in a selma'o may imply NOTHING about its semantics.=A0 Membersh=
ip=20
in NU means only that it serves as the head of a phrase that includes a=20
bridi and is terminated by a possibly elidable kei.>

Which gives some prima facie clues about its semantics, unless the included=
=20
bridi is just window dressing (not a possibility I considered until the {me=
=20
mi mo'e moi} fiasco).

<How about one where it stands by itself, developing its own meaning? A si'=
o=20
abstraction "means" NOTHING other than that which fills the x1 of sidbo, a=
=20
ka abstraction is an x2 of ckaji and a few other predicates, a ni=20
abstraction is an x1 of klani, a sedu'u is an x2 of cusku.=A0 Deciding what=
=20
place structures applied to these abstractions did some constraining of the=
=20
meanings, but relatively little.=A0 Arguing whether a si'o is a kind of ka =
is=20
a philosophical argument, of the sort that can never be settled, because it=
=20
hinges on whether one is willing to consider an idea to be a characteristic=
=20
of something (i.e., is the x1 of sidbo an x2 of ckaji?)=A0 We are NOT going=
=20
to agree, and the argument is therefore fruitless.>

Well, it is not obvious that we will never agree, since it is not obvious=20
that the argument is philosophic rather than linguistic, in which practical=
=20
features, for example, might play a role.  More importantly, it is rarely t=
he=20
case that the conclusion is the only fruit of discussion -- a better=20
understanding of what is involved in a particular abstraction or in=20
abstractions generally may arise, as well as some infrmation about all thos=
e=20
places that these abstractions fill and the selbri where they fill them. =
=20
Seems at least as valuable as another dozen banal sentences in safe=20
constructions.

<Saying more or less what I said.=A0 Equating the places of two different=20
predicates in some absolute manner serves as a metaphysical restriction on=
=20
how we look at the universe.=A0 Lojban tries to avoid such metaphysical=20
constraints.=A0 Semantic conventions are thus to some extent bad things if=
=20
they are rationalized, because the rationalization will always be in view=20
of some particular metaphysical outlook.>

The worst kind of pseudo-whorfian claptrap.  The argument it claims to be i=
n=20
accord with was a refutation of the claim that {si'o} and {ka} were alike, =
in=20
support of the claim that {si'o} and {nu} are alike, so not at all what=20
Lojbab said in the first place and  he said nothing like the gist of the=20
argument in the second.  That aside, some notion of how the semantics of=20
various phrases works is not at all metaphysically constraining, since --=20
once we know how things goes -- we can account for them equally well in a=20
variety of ways metaphysically.  To be sure, a nice picture helps for a whi=
le=20
in formulating a theory, but the picture is not the theory.  And the theory=
=20
is not metaphysical.

<Nora and I, with less than full reading of all these intertwining threads=
=20
of abstractors seem to glorkjunkie that si'o is supposed to be the=20
archetype that you are talking about above.=A0 If this is the case then lo'=
e=20
is a manifestation of that archetype (and not the archetype itself (which=20
manifestation may or may not actually exist in the real world)).=A0 We=20
discuss ideas, and not manifestations of those ideas.

More specifically, while lo pavyseljirna may not exist, lo'e pavyseljirna=20
is something that people draw pictures and write books about as if such=20
things did exist, and those things are distinct from the ideas/ideals we=20
have of them: the idea of a unicorn is not going to carry a fair maiden,=20
the manifestation of that idea would do so.

Now it might still be the case that we should use something like lo'e tanxe=
 in
mi sisku lo'e tanxe, because we probably aren't seeking properties, but=20
manifestations that have the property.=A0=A0 This is not quite what Jorge h=
ad=20
in mind since it does not equate ka and lo'e, but it might clarify/correct=
=20
what is intended when we talk about seeking a property (which if people=20
recall was introduced to keep people from searching for noda when they were=
=20
searching for lo pavyseljirna which does not exist).>

Thus avoiding all metaphysics!  Ideas, ideals, archetypes, manifestations o=
f=20
archetypes, real things, properties... An ontology to make Plato weep -- an=
d=20
Aristotle too fror the opposite reason.  I especially like being able to=20
paint a picture of a manifestation of an archetype -- an presumably not=20
ending with a blank canvas.=20=20
Now, what does all this mean in terms of linguistic usage?  Well, we do hav=
e=20
the note that maybe we seek manifestations of archetypes rather than=20
properties, i.e. lo'e broda rather than ka ce'u broda (we can at least keep=
=20
up with the latest decision of usage).  But of course we rarely do; any old=
=20
unicorn will do, even if it far from a manifestation of the archetype=20
(unless, of course, every unicorn is a manifestation of the archetype, in=20
which case we are probably back at the problem that there are no unicorns,=
=20
again)

<My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e
>is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with
>maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction,
>and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. However, if there is no specific
>rule for the binding/reference-fixing of zo'e (and if its reference
>can be fixed arbitrarily within the abstraction, i.e so that it can't
>be exported to prenex of main bridi), then {na ku ro ka broda cu pa
>mei}, because there'd be as many {ka broda} as there are construals of
>the zo'e within it. IMO that would be a Bad Thing, because all
>abstractions would become intolerably vague, except to glorkjunkies.

Nora opines that apparently then you may be stuck with the glorkjunkie=20
version, because when we use ka anaphorically, we appear to get the result=
=20
you dislike

Thus if we are discussing
lo ka ce'u lebna loi titla loi cifnu
we might later anaphorically refer to
le ka lebna
where we clearly may want the zo'es to be carried over indefinitely.

on the other hand it isn't always the case that we want the zo'es to carry=
=20
over.>

Anaphora is different from scoping problems: we need only a reminder to=20
recover the whole-- complete with it bound terms.

<At 06:04 PM 8/31/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>{le si'o ce'u broda kei be mi} =3D my notion of Broda

That might be your notion of "le broda", just as

{le si'o broda ce'u kei be mi}

might be your notion of "le se broda"

But let us turn to some abstractions that people often label as Ideas, like=
=20
"Freedom" and "Peace".=A0 I can't figure out whether the ce'u goes in those=
=20
or why you would want to use one.=A0 Yet I have to claim/concede that ce'ul=
ess

le si'o zifre kei be mi

is not the same as ce'uless

le ka zifre

because the latter does not have "mi" in the place structure, nor is either=
=20
of these clearly the same as

le du'u zifre

though the latter two seem closer than the si'o is to either.>

Oh goody!  We need another kind of idea, Idea.  Actually, I think that this=
=20
is correct, since the properties we have so far and the ideas, too, tend to=
=20
be very extensional and we need the intensions as well -- at the risk of=20
being accused of metaphysics rather than Logic at this point.









           
--part1_77.1af820ac.28d0eb2d_boundary 
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 9/10/2001 6:25:29 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
<BR>lojbab@lojban.org writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">A point I have been tryin=
g to stress whenever I say "let usage=20
<BR>decide". &nbsp;Usage will not have decided while there are still only a=
 handful=20
<BR>of people competent enough at the easy stuff that they are willing to e=
ssay=20
<BR>using the more complex or abstract ones. &nbsp;And I daresay there are =
a lot of=20
<BR>people who might USE the language more if they could successfully pull=
=20
<BR>themselves away from the endless arguments ABOUT the language.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Membership in a selma'o may imply NOTHING about its semantics.=A0 M=
embership=20
<BR>in NU means only that it serves as the head of a phrase that includes a=
=20
<BR>bridi and is terminated by a possibly elidable kei.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Which gives some prima facie clues about its semantics, unless the incl=
uded=20
<BR>bridi is just window dressing (not a possibility I considered until the=
 {me=20
<BR>mi mo'e moi} fiasco).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;How about one where it stands by itself, developing its own meaning=
? A si'o=20
<BR>abstraction "means" NOTHING other than that which fills the x1 of sidbo=
, a=20
<BR>ka abstraction is an x2 of ckaji and a few other predicates, a ni=20
<BR>abstraction is an x1 of klani, a sedu'u is an x2 of cusku.=A0 Deciding =
what=20
<BR>place structures applied to these abstractions did some constraining of=
 the=20
<BR>meanings, but relatively little.=A0 Arguing whether a si'o is a kind of=
 ka is=20
<BR>a philosophical argument, of the sort that can never be settled, becaus=
e it=20
<BR>hinges on whether one is willing to consider an idea to be a characteri=
stic=20
<BR>of something (i.e., is the x1 of sidbo an x2 of ckaji?)=A0 We are NOT g=
oing=20
<BR>to agree, and the argument is therefore fruitless.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, it is not obvious that we will never agree, since it is not obvio=
us=20
<BR>that the argument is philosophic rather than linguistic, in which pract=
ical=20
<BR>features, for example, might play a role. &nbsp;More importantly, it is=
 rarely the=20
<BR>case that the conclusion is the only fruit of discussion -- a better=20
<BR>understanding of what is involved in a particular abstraction or in=20
<BR>abstractions generally may arise, as well as some infrmation about all =
those=20
<BR>places that these abstractions fill and the selbri where they fill them=
. &nbsp;
<BR>Seems at least as valuable as another dozen banal sentences in safe=20
<BR>constructions.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Saying more or less what I said.=A0 Equating the places of two diff=
erent=20
<BR>predicates in some absolute manner serves as a metaphysical restriction=
 on=20
<BR>how we look at the universe.=A0 Lojban tries to avoid such metaphysical=
=20
<BR>constraints.=A0 Semantic conventions are thus to some extent bad things=
 if=20
<BR>they are rationalized, because the rationalization will always be in vi=
ew=20
<BR>of some particular metaphysical outlook.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>The worst kind of pseudo-whorfian claptrap. &nbsp;The argument it claim=
s to be in=20
<BR>accord with was a refutation of the claim that {si'o} and {ka} were ali=
ke, in=20
<BR>support of the claim that {si'o} and {nu} are alike, so not at all what=
=20
<BR>Lojbab said in the first place and &nbsp;he said nothing like the gist =
of the=20
<BR>argument in the second. &nbsp;That aside, some notion of how the semant=
ics of=20
<BR>various phrases works is not at all metaphysically constraining, since =
--=20
<BR>once we know how things goes -- we can account for them equally well in=
 a=20
<BR>variety of ways metaphysically. &nbsp;To be sure, a nice picture helps =
for a while=20
<BR>in formulating a theory, but the picture is not the theory. &nbsp;And t=
he theory=20
<BR>is not metaphysical.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Nora and I, with less than full reading of all these intertwining t=
hreads=20
<BR>of abstractors seem to glorkjunkie that si'o is supposed to be the=20
<BR>archetype that you are talking about above.=A0 If this is the case then=
 lo'e=20
<BR>is a manifestation of that archetype (and not the archetype itself (whi=
ch=20
<BR>manifestation may or may not actually exist in the real world)).=A0 We=
=20
<BR>discuss ideas, and not manifestations of those ideas.
<BR>
<BR>More specifically, while lo pavyseljirna may not exist, lo'e pavyseljir=
na=20
<BR>is something that people draw pictures and write books about as if such=
=20
<BR>things did exist, and those things are distinct from the ideas/ideals w=
e=20
<BR>have of them: the idea of a unicorn is not going to carry a fair maiden=
,=20
<BR>the manifestation of that idea would do so.
<BR>
<BR>Now it might still be the case that we should use something like lo'e t=
anxe in
<BR>mi sisku lo'e tanxe, because we probably aren't seeking properties, but=
=20
<BR>manifestations that have the property.=A0=A0 This is not quite what Jor=
ge had=20
<BR>in mind since it does not equate ka and lo'e, but it might clarify/corr=
ect=20
<BR>what is intended when we talk about seeking a property (which if people=
=20
<BR>recall was introduced to keep people from searching for noda when they =
were=20
<BR>searching for lo pavyseljirna which does not exist).&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Thus avoiding all metaphysics! &nbsp;Ideas, ideals, archetypes, manifes=
tations of=20
<BR>archetypes, real things, properties... An ontology to make Plato weep -=
- and=20
<BR>Aristotle too fror the opposite reason. &nbsp;I especially like being a=
ble to=20
<BR>paint a picture of a manifestation of an archetype -- an presumably not=
=20
<BR>ending with a blank canvas. &nbsp;
<BR>Now, what does all this mean in terms of linguistic usage? &nbsp;Well, =
we do have=20
<BR>the note that maybe we seek manifestations of archetypes rather than=20
<BR>properties, i.e. lo'e broda rather than ka ce'u broda (we can at least =
keep=20
<BR>up with the latest decision of usage). &nbsp;But of course we rarely do=
; any old=20
<BR>unicorn will do, even if it far from a manifestation of the archetype=20
<BR>(unless, of course, every unicorn is a manifestation of the archetype, =
in=20
<BR>which case we are probably back at the problem that there are no unicor=
ns,=20
<BR>again)
<BR>
<BR>&lt;My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e
<BR>&gt;is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with
<BR>&gt;maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction,
<BR>&gt;and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. However, if there is no specific
<BR>&gt;rule for the binding/reference-fixing of zo'e (and if its reference
<BR>&gt;can be fixed arbitrarily within the abstraction, i.e so that it can=
't
<BR>&gt;be exported to prenex of main bridi), then {na ku ro ka broda cu pa
<BR>&gt;mei}, because there'd be as many {ka broda} as there are construals=
 of
<BR>&gt;the zo'e within it. IMO that would be a Bad Thing, because all
<BR>&gt;abstractions would become intolerably vague, except to glorkjunkies=
.
<BR>
<BR>Nora opines that apparently then you may be stuck with the glorkjunkie=
=20
<BR>version, because when we use ka anaphorically, we appear to get the res=
ult=20
<BR>you dislike
<BR>
<BR>Thus if we are discussing
<BR>lo ka ce'u lebna loi titla loi cifnu
<BR>we might later anaphorically refer to
<BR>le ka lebna
<BR>where we clearly may want the zo'es to be carried over indefinitely.
<BR>
<BR>on the other hand it isn't always the case that we want the zo'es to ca=
rry=20
<BR>over.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Anaphora is different from scoping problems: we need only a reminder to=
=20
<BR>recover the whole-- complete with it bound terms.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;At 06:04 PM 8/31/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
<BR>&gt;{le si'o ce'u broda kei be mi} =3D my notion of Broda
<BR>
<BR>That might be your notion of "le broda", just as
<BR>
<BR>{le si'o broda ce'u kei be mi}
<BR>
<BR>might be your notion of "le se broda"
<BR>
<BR>But let us turn to some abstractions that people often label as Ideas, =
like=20
<BR>"Freedom" and "Peace".=A0 I can't figure out whether the ce'u goes in t=
hose=20
<BR>or why you would want to use one.=A0 Yet I have to claim/concede that c=
e'uless
<BR>
<BR>le si'o zifre kei be mi
<BR>
<BR>is not the same as ce'uless
<BR>
<BR>le ka zifre
<BR>
<BR>because the latter does not have "mi" in the place structure, nor is ei=
ther=20
<BR>of these clearly the same as
<BR>
<BR>le du'u zifre
<BR>
<BR>though the latter two seem closer than the si'o is to either.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Oh goody! &nbsp;We need another kind of idea, Idea. &nbsp;Actually, I t=
hink that this=20
<BR>is correct, since the properties we have so far and the ideas, too, ten=
d to=20
<BR>be very extensional and we need the intensions as well -- at the risk o=
f=20
<BR>being accused of metaphysics rather than Logic at this point.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_77.1af820ac.28d0eb2d_boundary--