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

Re: [jboske] RE: Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

At 06:34 AM 1/9/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Nick Nicholas scripsit:

> 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.

I agree. This implies fixing the ma'oste.

Why is the ma'oste broken? There is no need to add to the CLL prescription; it merely is silent on the elliptical usages of tu'o as it is on multitudinous other things.

Furthermore there is usage history and a clear need for an elliptical digit, which tu'o was used for (and mo'ezo'e cannot be used as a digit).

If it is agreed that tu'o cannot overlap both zi'o and zo'e (I remain unconvinced of this), then this is a clear case for adding a new cmavo, in which case the CLL usage would justify giving tu'o the zi'o interpretation (though I don't think it requires a zi'o interpretation to make sense as a null operand, it is consistent with same to do so), but the case has to be made that tu'o needs that specific a definition, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that I don't think we have any other cmavo that are simple abbreviations for a two-cmavo string (which seems like a waste of cmavo to me), so it seem clear that there was no INTENT that tu'o mean something so simple.

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