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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Lojbab:
> 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 

See my other message explaining why.

> 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) 

Okay, there is a need for an elliptical digit. Either that digit is
tu'o, in which case the BF will have to override CLL and replace 
CLL tu'o by mo'ezi'o, or we need a new cmavo for an elliptical
digit.

> If it is agreed that tu'o cannot overlap both zi'o and zo'e (I remain 
> unconvinced of this), 

It is impossible to convince you of anything. If you thought 2 + 2 = 5,
there is no way I could convince you otherwise. Sometimes, weight of
opinion seems to convince you; but not argument.

> 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 

I imagine that the option of using mo'ezi'o hadn't occurred to
anyone at the time. Or, if it had, perhaps it might have been thought
too long winded -- after all, you are all in favour of mex being
short winded -- or perhaps it might have been felt that each major
paradigm warrants it's own ma-counterpart, zo'e-counterpart, zu'i-
counterpart and zi'o-counterpart.

--And.