RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

I fully support And in the following, and regard Bob's attempt to 
define tu'o as mo'ezo'e as perverse:

***
cu'u la .and.
Lojbab:
#At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
#> > >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
#>
#>If retu'o is not canonical then it is plainly wrong, seeing as the mo'ezi'o
#>meaning of tu'o is canonical.
#
#I don't know what you mean by canonical. If you mean that CLL says that
#tu'o and mo'ezi'o are identical in meaning, can I trouble you for a cite,
#because I certainly don't see it. Indeed zi'o is never discussed in
#interaction with anything else.

In the mekso chapter, tu'o is introduced as an operand that turns a binary
operator into a unary one -- i.e. it is the operand counterpart of the sumti
zi'o.

#It is plausible that the only uses of tu'o in CLL could be replaced by
#mo'ezi'o, but even that is arguable since there is no formal definition of
#the combination mo'ezi'o - it must be inferred.

That tu'o = mo'ezi'o can be deduced, since we know from CLL what each
of tu'o, mo'e and zi'o mean.

#But in addition, lack of other examples is not a definition.

If retu'o, "twentysomething", existed in CLL then tu'o would be contradictorily
defined. I think it is therefore legitimate to deduce that retu'o cannot mean
"twentysomething".
***

I mean, we could define {re} as meaning 6006 when quantifying 
unicorns and 2 otherwise; there's nothing in CLL preventing that, 
either. But that is disgusting, and malicious. Bob wanted {retu'o} to 
mean twenties. If Bob had put it in CLL, we'd have a mess to clean 
up, and it would not have survived the cleanup. But because Bob 
didn't put {retu'o} into CLL, why should I now accept that tu'o = 
both mo'ezi'o and mo'ezo'e?

Only that which CLL uses is defined. CLL uses tu'o as mo'ezi'o and 
does not use zi'o as mo'ezo'e or mo'e lo grutraktinidio . Therefore 
only mo'ezi'o is a canonical use of tu'o. Founder hunches and intent 
are irrelevant to canonicity. If I allow you to define tu'o as 
mo'ezo'e, I also allow you to define tu'o as mo'e lo grutraktinidio, 
and I will not.

The BPFK (if I ever get it started) considers what gets added to the 
CLL prescription. Founder intent is of interest, but is not decisive, 
and is assuredly not canonical. tu'o = mo'ezo'e is not in the CLL 
prescription. And I for one don't want it there either.

--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****