From sentto-44114-17643-1039196874-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Dec 06 17:18:08 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.75]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KTbX-00060B-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:18:03 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17643-1039196874-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.197] by n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Dec 2002 17:47:54 -0000 X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 17:47:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 34671 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 17:47:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 17:47:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.171) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 17:47:54 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gB6HlqN30866 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:47:52 +1100 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis 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: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:47:52 +1100 Subject: [lojban] The Nicolaic New Testament Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3187 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Message: 10 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:58:36 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: RE: lo'edu'u > Nick, this was a beautiful exposition of myopic singularization. > Can you put it on the wiki? Done, and I'll be adding emendations as I get time from both private communications and jboske. The executive summary is that, while the lenu/lo'enu distinction is valid, squintability doesn't necessarily carry across to du'u, and I got carried away. A difference between nu and du'u is that, while lo'enu may end up turning off places (lo'e nu limna kei = lo'e nu zi'o limna zi'o), du'u routinely does so in different ways: ledu'u zo'e kaunai lima zo'e kaunai kei, ledu'u ce'u limna ce'u. But I'll need to go through what happens on jboske on this (and for And to make a fuller case for lo'edu'u). I think both are valid, actually, and lo'edu'u is inductive reasoning; but that's for that forum. And it's not going to happen soon. I took today off work to catch up on Lojban mail (directly and indirectly: my sleep was shot to hell all this week because of this, and I badly needed to catch up on sleep anyway); but I can't keep doing so. So I defer the tech details. But on the ideological stuff we're all here for: While me agreeing with And on a particular issue is not intrinsically poison, me being hailed as a Salvator by him is. :-) On the specific issue of lenu being overused where lo'enu is more appropriate, Jordan agrees too; he just didn't make the song and dance about it that I did. And me realising the difference is not such a revolutionarily new thing; the ka...ce'u discussions of last August were similar: brought in by jboskeists, accepted by the community at large, which also accept that prior usage was thereby invalidated. Now, we have several issues arising from your proclamation of a Nicolaitan New Testament. 1. Ever since my cotranslator of the Klingon Hamlet spoke of Nicholasian style, I've been yearning to launch my own oddball adjectivisation of my surname, which would be Nicolaic. But don't mind me. 2. If we're going to do this trope, I'd rather I author the Gospel of the Ebionites than the letters of Paul. If the "not a jot of the Law" business is true, the historical Jesus would as well. [Allusions to history of Christianity I won't go further into; that's what google's for :-)] 3. Any leaps and bounds I engineer in the understanding of Lojban, I undertake to do with caution and reluctance. I don't *like* annulling past usage, after all. 4. If this New Testament is to be a formalist mathematicalisation of the language, then the formalists do it on their own time and their own dime, after the freeze. And while it will be fun and will illuminate our understanding of the language, it cannot have any prescriptive force on the language, because by then the naturalists will have gone their way anyway. 5. If this New Testament is to be the _Lojban for Intermediates_ I have ruminated on, the mantle I'd be taking on isn't really Woldemarian, it's Turnerian (and at a remove, LeChevalierian, but taking up Bob's mantle is something we've been doing routinely anyway.) And as John already knows, he's my first choice as a coauthor for such a work anyway. There won't necessarily be just two authors, but there will be more than one. 6. The only legally sanctioned NT to Woldemar's OT, though, is the forthcoming dictionary. And, And, since it will be a committee work, with much compromise and watering down, it can't be the break with the past you're evangelising. It'll be at most the Mishnah. 7. Furthering the formalist mission consists of three aspects as I see it. (a) Articulating and agreeing on a formalistion. jboske and the Lore have being trying to, but very disjointly. (b) Using formalist insights in Lojban text. Jorge has been doing this; whether people are paying attention, well, if I was actually reading Jordan and Jorge's exchanges I'd find out :-) (c) *Explaining* this formalist stuff to other Lojbanists. I'm interested in doing the last; I don't think this makes me a salvator. [For explanation of why I say Salvator rather than Saviour: the allusion is to And's talk on the wiki of the "Grice Salvator": when in doubt, trust context and such. 'Salvator' connotes to me a machine, a Saviour-In-A-Box, a Ready Fix For All Your Problems.] 8. I see we work with personality cults. Traditionally, Supplication to Bob; frequently, me and xod Supplication to John; Deference to Jorge by default (though not in all specifics --- then again, none of this always works with specifics :-) ; and I'm starting to see, Leadership from me. Now, this stuff is not intrinsically bad. "I agree with X much of the time, and he's not usually an asshole, so I'll trust him on this." That's an acceptable shortcut much of the time; not everyone can debate everything always for themselves. But of course, not everyone defers to any one person in this community ("herding cats"), and nor should they. Any authority I get given needs not only to be removable, but also to be checked; and I want it checked. There's a possibility that jboske stuff becomes mainstream stuff when I accept it, and that that's what happened with ka...ce'u; really, though, people, I'm uncomfortable with that prospect. The real solution is that jboskeists develop the skills being attributed to me, to simply explain what the hell they're on about better. I have some skills I am willing to place at the community's disposal; but please, let's not talk of mantles. That makes me nervous, and I'm still cult-of-personalitying the guy whose mantle you would have me assume, after all. :-) .i mi na jinvi ledu'u da pamei le'i tolckapygau befi le cecmu .i mi jinvi ledu'u za'u vajni za'u gunka zo'u: le gunka cu .ei mulgau le vajni .i pe'i pa gunka za'urau vajni zo'u naku le gunka cu .ei mulgau le vajni .i kakne najenai bilga lenu go'i [][][][] [][][][][][][][][][] [][][][] Dr Nick Nicholas. opoudjis@optushome.com.au http://www.opoudjis.net University of Melbourne: nickn@unimelb.edu.au Chiastaxo dhe to giegnissa, i dhedhato potemu, ma ena chieri aftumeno ecratu, chisvissemu. (I Thisia tu Avraam) To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/