[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [jboske] Re: gadri paradigm: 2 excellent proposals

At 05:19 PM 12/22/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: 
> > * Is there any scope to fiddle with default interpretations
> > of bare gadri?
>
> By the fundamentalist imperative, not much

I agree. But we know that CLL is partly broken,

We don't "know" this. CLL does not claim to define a semantic theory for Lojban, and it is that expectation that is broken.

But yes, there is a departure from CLL, in a change to the
rule for interpretation of bare lo/le/la when there is no outer
or inner PA. But fundamentalism would likewise insist on loi/lei/lai
as being fuzzy conflations of Substance and Collective; it is not
acceptable for someone to be Fundamentalist on some things and not
on others, without making their Fundamentalism suspect.

The ground rules of the byfy require that "fundamentalists" accept that there be some changes to CLL, whether they (we) want it or not. I am trying to destroy factionalism, so quit trying to force people into factional modes.

The ground rules of the byfy are that changes are not to be made lightly, and not merely because someone has a better idea. "Broken" in reference to CLL means that it is self-contradictory (or contradicts the word lists). Contradicting some school of logic is NOT "broken", and being semantically vague is not "broken", just "vague".

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org