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

Re: [jboske] Digest Number 135

At 05:02 PM 12/28/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
So right now, to keep my own sanity, I paraphrase as follows:

Prototype(x) = x, by definition
Unique/Kind(x) = x, in general
Mode(x) = x, most of the time

That formulation would allow lo'e to be used for all three
prototype is lo'eca'e
unique is lo'esu'a
mode is probably lo'eza'a but we do not have an evidential for statistical analysis or misanalysis in particular,

and the other evidentials give other useful varieties of lo'e

(might this use of evidentials handle opaque references? Could an evidential attached to some other gadri convey something that exists in my mind, but not necessarily in reality? How about se'o?)

Taking avatars and individuals as the model for individuals and kinds
again: in most messages, Nick is fundie. In a thread or two, Nick is
revisionist. Say each message represents a different avatar of Nick.
Some avatars are fundie, some revisionist. If almost all avatars are
fundie, you say Nick (the unique extracted from the avatars) is fundie
(in general). If a non-negligible number of exceptions become salient,
you change that to Nick is sometimes fundie and sometimes revisionist.
That is subjective, true, but not completely arbitrary. Mode Nick
doesn't help here, because most of the time Nick is neither fundie nor
revisionist, he's asleep, transcribing wordlists, or proofreading his
book.

One would not be able to characterize lo'eza'a me la nitcion as to ideology, but one could use lo'esu'a.

Sorr, got pi'u and jo'u confused. I still suspect jo'u was introduced
in a maths-induced bender, without realising it reintroduced the tuple
as distinct from the mass; but that's a historical matter.

jo'u was not introduced as a math-induced thing. In setting up the non-logical connectives, I made a quick attempt to break down JCB's ze (which usually meant joi but was used inconsistently) to multiple words representing connectives in English that were NOT joi. I did not look to achieve logical completeness, and indeed since these were "non-logical" connectives, I presumed that they were beyond logical analysis. But this doesn't stop jboske %^)

So a duo singing is a lojbanmass. But singing is not an emergent
property, since you can say the individuals sing.

But duet-singing is an emergent property involving harmonies that are not too possible in individual singing.

>> True, that's not a valid BPFK argument. It's still my defense
>> for my usage
> Plus, the ethos back in those days, when Lojbab was a bigger influence
> on the community, was Usage Decides. One was encouraged not to tinker
> but to use.

One isn't being encouraged to tinker now either of course :-) . And
also, as xod said, all travel into uncharted terrain is tinkering.

If it occurs in a lojban conversational environment, and not in a quasi-prescriptive discussion, I would not mind so much. I can always say ki'a in a lojban conversation, and if too many people say ki'a the tinkering will not fly.

The expectation was (and I believe remains, as far as Bob is concerned)
that we can get away with leaving semantics to Usage;

I have accepted in principle that semantic stuff pronounced upon by CLL is taken as sufficiently scriptural that we have to make sure that those pronouncements aren't WRONG (whether they need to be "right" is less clear. Usage can fill in the gaps, can refine what needs refining and generalize what needs generalizing, but it is poor at correcting errors and contradictions without causing angst.

But when we aren't sure that what we have is wrong (and the current debate on lojbanmass has been all over the place on this scale), then I am less inclined to favor a change.

But how to do an intensional reference? No, that shall no
longer be left to usage, because leaving it to usage has resulted in
lo'e and loi being conscripted for purposes they weren't intended for
in CLL, and this is regarded as a problem to be solved, by, I think,
everyone.

I agree, if we can decide to agree on what an intensional reference is, and whether there is only one kind which has to be represented (I get the impression that there may be more than one kind of intensional, without actually understanding what-all is being discussed. This suggests that the solution may not be a representation of +/-intensional, but something else.

But... recognising error here also means I've learned something. I'd
rather that...

Me too (noting that you make fewer errors than I do).

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