[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [jboske] Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134
At 01:11 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >We all agree that the vlaste are rife with poor wordings. Sometimes
> >that wordings are unclear, sometimes they give rise to contradiction,
> >sometimes they fail to express the designers' intention. Si'e is an
> >instance of the last of these. But these are the baselined materials,
> >and they define current SL
>
> Thus we bear the fruit of people insisting on baselining a document that
> wasn't written with the intent of being a baseline document (none of the
> wordlists were - they were LogFlash file inputs)
Tell-me-aboud-it. I thought you were a pro-baseliner.
I am, but I recognize that we baselined some things too soon. I opposed
some of those baselines being adopted when they were, but I lose my share
of political values too. And my job, once they were indeed baselined, was
to defend the baseline, regardless of my own feelings.
> I think that tu'o is ambiguous between mo'ezo'e and mo'ezi'o in its
> definition. In one grammatical context, that of a dummy argument in PN or
> RPN, it seems clearly to be mo'ezi'o. When used as a digit variable in a
> digit string such as retu'o for twenty-something, it is clearly mo'ezo'e
I wasn't aware of the "retu'o" usage.
I'm not sure if it has been used, but it has been thought of, once we had
created tu'o for the other purpose.
> I define whether it is or is not quantified by whether the syntax allows
> it. I am a pragmatist
As you yourself often rightly say, not everything grammatical is
meaningful. And assuming otherwise can be harmful, as in the present
instance (e.g. it being so hard to refer to the number 2).
li re
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