In a message dated 10/1/2001 11:53:21 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
Anyway, I'm not trying topersuade anybody to change the interpretation rule What I said: "This has led to occasional efforts to make Lojban more like FOPL by insisting that all terms always be stated or that, at least, there is a unique way of restoring unstated terms (more informative than {zo’e}) that can always be applied when misunderstandings appear. Even the proponents of such moves find them impossible to stick to in general writing orconversation, even for very special narrow cases, but the efforts recur periodically." That is, no one has come up with a way of uniquely restroring omitted terms that always works correctly and that a person will actually use. That is quite a way from saying that no interpetation rule (I might argue with the use of "rule" here, of course, as opposed to "guidelines," perhaps) is viable. People make reasoned interpretations all the time -- even prerationalized ones. But nothing like the rules (which got everybody up in arms) for finding the {ce'u}s in a ka phrase that had no overt ones -- and it actually would work. |