From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Sep 30 14:11:18 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1ELS9r-00039g-V6 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:11:08 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1ELS9o-00039X-TA for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:11:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 95287 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Sep 2005 21:11:03 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VrJw0/XiEPxhU6a6mdOH8nReaYcEUl08cz+c0bE+w1dT6uoPWrGtKxlAnf+vif5yiSLWc0H+EzCMnyI+CSF2I4gb0ATkbRBwdAFAhlg2Ez99y7lrixJYvv7G90gezo6bgdnTqYGxWicvdUKkGbRDqvqa9OBJ/Y/BCV9NQhRYQ7g= ; Message-ID: <20050930211103.95285.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.34.50] by web81308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:11:03 PDT Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:11:03 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560509300847s6a7f7431w46df1b34f135dff5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-archive-position: 10693 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 9/30/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > The labels have changed for a variety of > reasons > > 1) I find a new facet of what you are > proposing > > (it may always have been there, but it comes > > clearly into focus only later -- possibly > from a > > new example or something that you say about > one > > of my proposed solution to the mystery) 2) > one > > proposed model having failed, I try a new > model > > to see if it will work better 3) some new > > information from outside comes in that casts > the > > problem in a better light (the McKay book on > > plural quantification and the types of > > predication was the clearest case of that) 4) > > some of the implications of an old name seem > to > > be interfering with understanding what the > model > > means and some other word seems to work > better. > > And I have nothing against that. I don't have > any problem > with you relabeling my position as often as you > find it > useful. What bothers me sometimes is that every > time > you do so, you claim it is me who is changing > positions > rather than you changing labels. Thaat would be reason 1. I am reasonably sure it is not intentional on your part but it has happened several times that I would get a working model for everything we had talked about in the course of its construction only to have you then say in effect "It won't work because it omits this feature" -- not mentioned in the last round of discussion, even if perhaps present at some earlier time. This is not cooperative behavior, which would be to lay out the whole thing once and for and make sure everything is in ti (well, of course, new situations may turn up new facets, but they can announced plainly and explained and then dealt with). Then we could be sure we were always dealing with everything of significance (or, of course, you could remind me earlier if something is left out. I don't know how this intuition that things go a certain way came to you but it seems that you have had it down pretty pat for some time, whereas I keep fining new (or long-forgotten old) features fairly regularly. > > On this, I have stepped back (in a reversal) > to > > "species" from "-hood," as it is not clear > just > > whjat properties are actally involved (or > even > > whether it is properties rather than some > othe > > form of abstraction -- it doesn't matter > except > > in how the final explication is phrased; the > > pattern of explication remains the same). I > > think that perhaps the same thing is working > for > > you: you drop the Mr.Mr. talk for fairly long > > stretches because it tend to lead the > discussion > > off into that murky metaphysical muck, which > is > > not strictly relevant to what you have in > mind > > I drop the Mr talk when discussing with you > because > I know it bothers you and you don't find it > helpful. I only > bring it up when Loglan is mentioned, because > JCB > used it to describe his {lo}, which has a lot > in common > with xorlo. As noted, JCB's paper goes some way toward explaining why Mr.Mr. talk bothers me. I think we all thought we understood what he was about with it, but it quickly emerged that we did not (at least we each understood something different by it) and even JCB was given to discovering new things in, not infrequently things that went against what he had said was there before. It has been, in short, the paradigm of a pseudoscientific theory, able to explain everything and so be useless for anything. Your version may be dfferent -- and, if it is what we came up, it is but the bad taste remains. > > (always assuming that you have something in > mind > > other than a set of sentences which you think > > ought ot have a certain meaning). > > That's very kind of you. :) Well, you have to admit that a clearly articulated theory has not been your strong suit (right after not explaining why you think things ought to go the way you think they ought). > > As has turned up many times, the examples are > not > > very useful without contexts and clear > > translations (which also require context > > usually). > > I don't know if you've read sanxiyn's recent > short translation > from a Korean piece. There he has some very > nice uses of {lo}. > Maybe speakers of languages without articles > and compulsory > number marking will be most comfortable with > {lo}. Well, they do have trouble with "the" (approximately {le}) and {lo} being contentless as it were is then more like what their own languiages have.. But the real problem seems always to be just remembering that there has to be something there at all. Once they get that they can get by with "a" in English or {lo} in Lojban without creating must trouble. > > {lo cinfa cu citka lo bakni} can mean any > number > > of things (and hence essentially nothing) in > > isolation. > > Yes, something like "Lion eat Cow", no number, > no tense, > no specificity. Hard to say in English. "Lions > eat cows" > would be the best shot. Which is marked in English for generality. I think it is best just to deal with the particular cases rather than the sentence in isolation -- if we are doing anything otherr than just making grammatical points. > > If it is clearly a report of what is > > going on or did on some occasion, it means > one > > thing; if it is clearly a generalization > about > > lions or cows, it means another; if it just > > laying out a possibility, it means yet > something > > else again. And so on. > > Right. > > > And an explication of > > what {lo cinfa} means needs to cover all of > these > > -- and whatever else comes along. It is the > more > > remote cases that are the most interesting > > usually: your {mi djica lo cinfa}, to stick > with > > the current vocabulary, reveals (as nothing > else > > does that I can recall) the peculiar nature > of > > {lo cinfa} relative to the other types of > sumti > > in the language (I mean the {lo} series, not > just > > the word {lo} -- so the contrast is with the > {le} > > series and variables primarily) -- if all > uses > > are to be encompassed in a single explication > (as > > seems to be part of what "logical language" > is about. > > Nothing peculiar about it from where I stand. > "I want Lion" simply says that I and Lion are > in relationship > "want", just like "I see Lion" says that we are > in relationship > "see". And the same would apply to {mi djica le > cinfo} or > {mi viska le cinfo}, except that now the > audience has to work > out what the referent of {le cinfo} might be, > something that > I am indicating as a specific thing or things I > have in mind. > You only run into trouble when you try to force > a quantification > into a claim that doesn't have one. The point is that only {lo} requires the species explanation -- and indeed, it is posssible for {le} and variable and free pronouns only by ad hoc filler rules. They all do just fine (as would {lo} with minor modifications) with standard interpretations where referents were the things the predicates obviously talk about. Lojban is the most concrete-object language I know -- it doesn't even have mass nouns and all the abstracta are treated as just other things on a par with dogs and cats. So, quite aside from the double system (or jury-rigged one), the whole species approach is unlojbanic (JCB's occasional aberrations notwithstanding). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.