I've seen essentially no attempts to define lojban words in lojban,
though, so take anything anyone says about this with a grain of salt.
Defining and redefining words really is half of the work in building
and explaining theories. If you do the definitions in natural
languages, you really don't make use of the strengths of lojban. So it
seems kind of strange to me that this is not done more often.
Not a lot of people have used lojban to define and explain theories
yes.
8)
With this definition I can then say e.g. (if I have not screwed up):
.i brode cei luman zei nunzga
.i zo censa selbo'e fi le skeci'e na.e le lijdyci'e po'e
"holy" is observationally marked to the science-system <-NOT and the
religious system.
(holy vs. (unholy or secular or whatever) is a difference that science
is blind to and religion alone can make)
My translation assumes that you meant fo; as it is it would be
"holy" is observationally marked, unmarked is the science-system <-NOT
and the religious system.
.i la saske cu velbo'e zo jetnu po'o enai zo melbi
Since is an observational system which marks truth only and not beauty.
(science is a system that marks things as being "true" and not as
"beautiful")
In both cases, you don't want zo, you want le ka.
I am dealing only with tokens called by names all the time. And
furthermore I have specifically defined X2 and X3 as symbols. So "zo"
or "lu'e" seem to be the obvious choices.
.i la brode ganlo ciste goi ko'a cu velbo'e da poi ko'a ka'e velbo'e
ke'a ku'o de poi ko'a na ka'e velbo'e ke'a .ijanai ko'a velbo'e lu'e
ko'a
That named something-closed-system is an observational system marking
things such that it is able to mark them, and not marking things which
it is not able to mark them, ONLY IF it is an observatinonal system
which marks a symbol for itself.
(The operationally closed system observes the difference of
observations it can make vs. those it can not make. If it can't do
that It can't refer to itself)
I don't think janai is what you wanted, but then I'm bat with only-if.
I'm fairly certain you didn't want lu'e. I'm also fairly certain you
don't want le.
I should not have used luman zei nunzga as an operation for a generic
closed system in the first place. When we observe systems we tend to
talk about them like they are velbo'e. But most Systems are more
limited in the way they can linke their operations.