From sentto-44114-15907-1032546725-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Sep 20 11:36:58 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.82]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17sSe7-0002MC-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:36:55 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15907-1032546725-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.192] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2002 18:32:06 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 18:32:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 7544 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.42.2db92cab (4402) for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42.2db92cab.2abcc343@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:30:27 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_42.2db92cab.2abcc343_boundary" X-archive-position: 1396 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_42.2db92cab.2abcc343_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 8:28:05 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > Read it as "intensionally-defined set". > >> As opposed to what? I would take this to mean, set defined by its proeprty rather than it members, that is to say, a set as we normally talk about them (outside set theory, of course). << > that we are > interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say. >> I would take it that, whatever its member(s), the set of properties that comprise what it is I am looking for an instance of when I am looking for a unicorn is more complex than the set of dogs. Of course, as sets they are square on a par -- things heaped together period. But concepts are more complex than dogs, whence the difference. Your earlier remark suggests that you think that the more things there are in a set, the more complex it is, but that would only be true of a set of miscellaneous items, where the specification is complex. For normal sets, the specifications are about on a par, or, if anything, a single-element set designed to be such, will be more complex because it has to stor so many things getting in. I think that complexity is a red herring here. << > But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o} > (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all). I said that {tu'o} is simpler than {lo pa}, by the obvious criterion of word count. >> The crucial thing in this discussion is that only one of the things is operant, regardless of how many there are (in many cases we are not sure -- or, at least have very different views). So that {tu'o} is a word (but not a syllable) shorter than {lo pa} is not relevant and that it is longer than {pa} is (if word or syllable count is significant). The extra information that {to'u} gives, that furthermore there is only one of them, is irrrelevant and so should not be given at space at all, even {'o}. << Quite so. And conversely, to make an inessential claim is a distraction from the essential claim. >> see above << > The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes' > {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than > xorxes original or modified claims. I haven't totally given up on making you able to understand it, but past experience makes me pessimistic. On the whole, if Jorge and I understand and agree with each other, I'm usually fairly confident that we're onto the Right Idea. >> I generally agree with that final principle -- you all do have a track record after all. But this time, you are so far beyond Cloud-cuckooland for your starting point, that I can't even catch up to your presuppositions, let alone what you derive from them. Further, since xorxes own description of his idea is inconsistent, I don't think even your agreement helps. But, on the other hand, the claim you both make, that you are at the same place, is not even obviously true, since no intertranslations (that do not assume the point at contention) have been provided, nor any explanation of either theory that coheres with even your own past practice, let alone with Lojban (I think this whole discussion is now clearly not for this list at all, but for loCCan or (since that assumes some connection with Lojban beyond phonetic form of morphemes) engelang. --part1_42.2db92cab.2abcc343_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 8:28:05 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
Read it as "intensionally-defined set".
>>
As opposed to what?  I would take this to mean, set defined by its proeprty rather than it members, that is to say, a set as we normally talk about them (outside set theory, of course).

<<
> that we are
> interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say.
>>

I would take it that, whatever its member(s),  the set of properties that comprise what it is I am looking for an instance of when I am looking for a unicorn is more complex than the set of dogs.  Of course, as sets they are square on a par -- things heaped together period.  But concepts are more complex than dogs, whence the difference.  Your earlier remark suggests that you think that the more things there are in a set, the more complex it is, but that would only be true of a set of miscellaneous items, where the specification is complex.  For normal sets, the specifications are about on a par, or, if anything, a single-element set designed to be such, will be more complex because it has to stor so many things getting in.
I think that complexity is a red herring here.

<<
> But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o}
> (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all).

I said that {tu'o} is simpler than {lo pa}, by the obvious criterion
of word count.
>>
The crucial thing in this discussion is that only one of the things is operant, regardless of how many there are  (in many cases we are not sure -- or, at least have very different views).  So that {tu'o} is a word (but not a syllable) shorter than {lo pa} is not relevant and that it is longer than {pa} is (if word or syllable count is significant).  The extra information that {to'u} gives, that furthermore there is only one of them, is irrrelevant and so should not be given at space at all, even {'o}.

<<
Quite so. And conversely, to make an inessential claim is a distraction
from the essential claim.
>>
see above

<<
> The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes'
> {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than
> xorxes original or modified claims.

I haven't totally given up on making you able to understand it,
but past experience makes me pessimistic. On the whole, if Jorge
and I understand and agree with each other, I'm usually fairly
confident that we're onto the Right Idea.
>>
I generally agree with that final principle -- you all do have a track record after all.  But this time, you are so far beyond Cloud-cuckooland for your starting point, that I can't even catch up to your presuppositions, let alone what you derive from them.  Further, since xorxes own description of his idea is inconsistent, I don't think even your agreement helps.  But, on the other hand, the claim you both make, that you are at the same place, is not even obviously true, since no intertranslations (that do not assume the point at contention) have been provided, nor any explanation of either theory that coheres with even your own past practice, let alone with Lojban
(I think this whole discussion is now clearly not for this list at all, but for loCCan or (since that assumes some connection with Lojban beyond phonetic form of morphemes) engelang.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_42.2db92cab.2abcc343_boundary--