From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDHjsvxBBoE6T-zuQ@googlegroups.com Fri Jul 29 07:44:43 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QmoIk-0004dP-3G; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:42 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf7046381fxd.16 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=TFTIfEKeV4iDqKegKzn1SIOEWQ939SeHkdkpOkVz8YY=; b=z/IYiyRNkKii3av0WIBKlYErxts0i30WLZ05R5Orri4Y9vnvMcEThP7LFCI2ctShlE PuJKVHSmhceq8/lXNoNAkQNiJ+kd9EnE8qMTvtKkUq3eBw923cxgr+fp7zpljOQDK6ur orcNlKoUlqt0x6mOx+zEGSUDRLgjIlNDhS5mk= Received: by 10.223.145.138 with SMTP id d10mr701058fav.38.1311950663300; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.106.37 with SMTP id v37ls5156045wbo.1.gmail; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.203.136 with SMTP id fi8mr152669wbb.10.1311950662436; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.203.136 with SMTP id fi8mr152668wbb.10.1311950662404; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l4si3891659wbo.3.2011.07.29.07.44.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.172; Received: by mail-wy0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 26so383331wyj.17 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.151.196 with SMTP id d4mr1972604wbw.102.1311950662149; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.47.135 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:44:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201107191408.50207.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1311780839.58357.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311870454.18589.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311886424.23009.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:44:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64c1f742e250004a93651ae --0016e64c1f742e250004a93651ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I wasn't ridiculing your idea. I'm a programmer who uses multiple inheritance regularly although I've been loving me some functional languages lately :) I was more just expressing my frustration with this general trend for modern philosophers to use language that seems to muddy the waters rather than clear them. e.g. "Thus, I guess the best thing to do is to create a neologism to encapsulate the very special meaning of this (somewhat ?) "new" notion..." Instead of "I think the best thing to do is to create a new word to describe this new concept". But really, I apologize. I'm being nit-picky and hickish. A person shouldn't be criticized for being articulate. mea culpa. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Escape Landsome wrote: > Luke, I am not doggy-philosophically qualified to tell if Cummerbund > is a valid concept. But Dao is regarded by philosophers as a valid > concept even if it embodies some multiple inheritance... Also, I > don't think you're ignorant, you just have a more > mathematics-polarized mind than me (besides, this is not plainly > exact, I think OOP-multiple inheritance can be > mathematically-logically understood). > > Why not being entitled to mix notions together ? After all, what is > "agit-prop" ? This term refers to a specific mix of "agitation" and > "propaganda". Hence, the soviet neologism. This is a particular > case of deciding it is valuable, to some extent and for some usage, to > mix up together A and B, and get the mixed-notion (A+B). There are > many other examples in language, either in tool names, in philosophic > or political concepts, in some caracterisation of some hybrid species, > and so on... > > You would argue that mixing up concepts is the kind of "ideological" > nonsense, or illogical argle-bargle that Lojban want to get rid of. > In some sense, the fact that it occurs a lot in ideology and > philosophy, two non-neutral thought-fields, is a hint... But, well, > even this is no argument : if someone wants to show that the use of a > notion (or a simili-notion) is argle-bargle, it is necessary for him > to be able to term it, to design it... thus, it is required we can > say even illogical base pseudo-notions in Lojban, even if it be just > to trample them down. Someone can scold me, but I think that { > speaking of a (both A and B)-object is valid } IFF { speaking of a > A-object AND speaking of a B-object are valid }. > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --0016e64c1f742e250004a93651ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I wasn't ridiculing your idea. =A0I'm a programmer who uses multipl= e=A0inheritance=A0regularly although I've been loving me some functiona= l languages lately :)

I was more just expressing my frus= tration with this general trend for modern philosophers to use language tha= t seems to muddy the waters rather than clear them.

e.g. "Thus, I guess the best thi= ng to do is to create a neologism to
encapsulate the very special meaning of this (somewhat ?) "new"
Instead of "I think the best thing to = do is to create a new word to describe this new concept".

But really, I=A0apologize= . =A0I'm being nit-picky and hickish. =A0A person shouldn't be=A0cr= iticized=A0for being articulate. =A0mea culpa.


On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:=
Luke, I am not doggy-philosophically qualified to tell if Cummerbund
is a valid concept. =A0But Dao is regarded by philosophers as a valid
concept even if it embodies some multiple inheritance... =A0 Also, I
don't think you're ignorant, you just have a more
mathematics-polarized mind than me (besides, this is not plainly
exact, I think OOP-multiple inheritance can be
mathematically-logically understood).

Why not being entitled to mix notions together ? =A0 After all, what is
"agit-prop" ? =A0This term refers to a specific mix of "agit= ation" and
"propaganda". =A0Hence, the soviet neologism. =A0 This is a parti= cular
case of deciding it is valuable, to some extent and for some usage, to
mix up together A and B, and get the mixed-notion (A+B). =A0 There are
many other examples in language, either in tool names, in philosophic
or political concepts, in some caracterisation of some hybrid species,
and so on...

You would argue that mixing up concepts is the kind of "ideological&qu= ot;
nonsense, or illogical argle-bargle that Lojban want to get rid of.
In some sense, the fact that it occurs a lot in ideology and
philosophy, two non-neutral thought-fields, is a hint... =A0 But, well,
even this is no argument : =A0if someone wants to show that the use of a notion (or a simili-notion) is argle-bargle, it is necessary for him
to be able to term it, to design it... =A0thus, it is required we can
say even illogical base pseudo-notions in Lojban, even if it be just
to trample them down. =A0 Someone can scold me, but I think that {
speaking of a (both A and B)-object is valid } IFF { speaking of a
A-object AND speaking of a B-object are valid }.

--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0016e64c1f742e250004a93651ae--