From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 29 21:10:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 30 Sep 2001 04:08:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 95297 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2001 04:08:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 30 Sep 2001 04:08:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2001 04:10:06 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.11]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010930041004.PQGZ710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 05:10:04 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] zo'e interpretation Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 05:09:20 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C1496E.103DCB80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <107.6582cff.28e7d2bd@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11205 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C1496E.103DCB80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/29/2001 7:42:03 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: While accepting that such moves aren't part of Lojban, I am nonetheless a proponent of such moves, and I don't accept that they can't be stuck to. I won't go into details of what I propose, but the essence is that the zo'e is interpreted so as to be equivalent to the weakest possible claim, and that the weakest possible claim can be griceanly strengthened until it achieves relevance. Well, they don't seem to get stuck to so far (can't even get people to decide on what to do with {ce'u} in {ka}). Taking {zo'e} as a mere existential quantifier or so can be strengthened griceanly, but that will not be the sort of thing that is wanted, because gricean solution are just the sort of thing that the restorers don't like: they are contextual and depend upon the belief web. They don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to stick to. I think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is not said that gricean solutions don't count. --And. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C1496E.103DCB80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message = dated=20 9/29/2001 7:42:03 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:= =20

While accepting that such moves aren't p= art of=20 Lojban, I am
nonetheless a proponent of such moves, and I don't acc= ept=20 that they
can't be stuck to. I won't go into details of what I prop= ose,=20 but
the essence is that the zo'e is interpreted so as to be equival= ent=20
to the weakest possible claim, and that the weakest possible claim= =20
can be griceanly strengthened until it achieves=20 relevance.

Well, they don't seem to get stuck to so = far=20 (can't even get people to decide on what to do with {ce'u} in {ka}). Taki= ng=20 {zo'e} as a mere existential quantifier or so can be strengthened gricean= ly,=20 but that will not be the sort of thing that is wanted, because gricean=20 solution are just the sort of thing that the restorers don't like: they a= re=20 contextual and depend upon the belief web.

They=20 don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to stick t= o. I=20 think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is not said tha= t=20 gricean solutions don't count.

--And.

= ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C1496E.103DCB80--