My objection was to refining those tags to the point of j= ust being the word definition. But even that may seems to generous of= me. Saying that Tom (who is, in fact, a block of wood) is a dog is n= ot nonsense, it is merely false. Saying that the property of being bl= ue is a dog is nonsense, so restricting x1 of 'gerku' to nonproperties for = the sake of sticking to sensible utterances is fine. What is more, ev= en that seems unnecessary in most cases: if you understand what 'gerku' mea= ns, you know that ideas can't be it, and similarly for most other cases.&nb= sp; There are (quite) a few cases where it is not obvious what can go thee = and for them some guidelines would be helpful, like the one about events fo= r x2 of 'djica'.

From:= Oren <get.oren@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 7:38:54 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakn= e lo bajra

Re:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 = at 17:14, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

So you can't make a false statement in Lojban? Or at least not one about do= gs? About the outer limit of usefulness here is to refer to the abstr= actors (sorry) that typically occur in each argument place, when there are = somre and otherwise just leave it open.

I have been talking this whole time about encouraging = sensicalness, which is very different from restricting grammatical soundnes= s (see "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). The end results would spec= ifically be used for "recommended" usages, and never for deciding what can = and can't be said in Lojban.

And I also argue that the outer limit of usefulness being re= stricted to abstractors is not the case, as such things as "animate," "inan= imate" would I feel have pretty immediate application. They also exhibit th= e hierarchical nature of these tags, since all animate/inanimate things wou= ld be physical things. Do we have anywhere a list of all sumti locations th= at are physical things? Do we furthermore have a list of which of those thi= ngs is animate and which not?

I've heard from several other people aside from myself = that this information would be useful to some, whether for learning or for = reference. I don't see how "only being able to say true things" relates to = the discussion, because what I'm talking about is "allowing people to be su= re they are at least saying sensical things." And for the great many non-fl= uent lojbanists, I think that making it easier to make sense is not a bad t= hing.

...

Or did I just attack a straw ma= n? You say it's fine to say "A block of wood is a canine." And I agree with= you, but add that there should be a way to know that what you're saying is= not as "sensical" as "A wolf is a canine."

Or a more practical example, when I wrote my infamously= erroneous sentence "mi kakne lo bajra," fifty lojbanists shouldn't have ha= d to spend 50 minutes each writing explanations, when there could have been= a reference sheet somewhere that said "{ lo bajra } doesn't make sense her= e. Did you mean { lo nu bajra } ?"

Maybe I'm just addicted to automating anything I find t= o be needlessly arbitrary.

co'o mi'e korbi

Oren Robinson

(315) 569-2888

102 Morrison Ave

Somerville, MA 02144

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.