[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [jboske] RE: fundamentalism as fundamental (RE: Re: gadri paradigm:2 excellent proposals
At 11:08 PM 12/23/02 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
The baseline was broken
on vo'a, giving one definition in the CLL and another one in the ma'oste.
If you use the word "contradictory" instead of "broken", I'll agree on that.
The CLL is broken on masses. (I will break this up into small sentences so
I am understood. It is not broken because I find the book's definition to
be ugly. It's broken because it's ambiguous, conflating two concepts.
It was recognized long ago that it conflated multiple concepts. As to
English mass nouns and various other parallels. Leaving it as one word was
intentional, therefore "broken" is not the right word.
An inconsistency (not quite a contradiction) in my mind was only
established when it was pointed out that we have joi and jo'u in the
connectives, thereby recognizing a distinction, but do not have parallel
distinctions in LE and LAhE. Adding those distinctions (and I'm not hot on
using CVVV space to do so, BTW; I'd rather go into xVV) thus removes an
inconsistency.
byfy has charter to remove inconsistencies. It has limited charter to
expand conflated concepts as a simple expansion, in order to simply
dictionary writing. Let's see what we can accomplish with the limited
charter, before fixing things that are not universally agreed to be "broken".
And because this conflation has not received an adequate defense from anyone.
"Adequate" is a subjective judgement.
And lo'e is broken until we figure out which of the at least 5 possible it
does or should have.
"All of the above" is an acceptable answer.
I also think that we might be overstating the importance here. How many
active writers are there?
Not many. And there won't ever be if we can't get a dictionary done
without schism.
I think that Jorge and I will follow the
Excellent Solution, no matter what Nick and Jordan say. I like it, and I
am going to smoke it. Because I have already resigned to my own need to
learn Lojban from scratch anyway ever since you formalists pulled your
word-order coup. The CLL didn't reveal that, but "there" it was.
If CLL doesn't reveal it, it may not be there. I have no idea what
"word-order coup" you are talking about. And the bottom line is that if it
doesn't get into the dictionary, or into errata for CLL, no such coup will
exist, because "active writers" will be learning from the books, and not
from jboske debates.
EVENTUALLY skilled and active writers will learn from each other THROUGH
USAGE what things work successfully in communication (and which do not),
and that is how the language will evolve. But that won't happen while most
of the world is waiting for the dictionary to be completed and the fiddlers
to stop fiddling (at least by decree, so that the learner can learn the
baseline language in confidence that it won't change).
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