In a message dated 11/1/2001 9:42:53 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
You and pc are supportersof B. I think most other people take it for granted I refuse to be pinned down on this one. I tend to use Lojban likeEnglish and so get A's all over the place, but I recognize that Lojban is not English and certainly some aspects of lojban make more sense from B. Hating every minute the following, I have to agree with Quine that whatLojban words really mean is not something that can be spelled out except in Lojban. May I add that I find it odd that And, a proponent of a new (relativelyin this discussion) metaphysics which is at least more obviously compatible with B, should at this point be a strong backer of A. <As for me, I think A better matches the way users see things, and it probably makes life less complicated.> Yes, for thoroughly SAE enculturated folks that we all are. RElevance to what is going on in Lojban? <If we went with B, then in order to talk about two words without relying on glorking, we'd have to use a lujvo, valsi zei selci, or other equivalent complex _expression_.> This is not obvious; we just might have to recognize that others would come up with a different "count" -- some people follow Mr. Whatsis's moves better than others. <Possibly the best would be to have analogues of measurement selbri: This kilos ten = this weighs 10 kilos This words ten = this is ten words.> No, we don't have verbometers we can read a number off the scale of or compute from other readings. <But this debate only arises under story B> Not obvious. I had assumed that the discussion about what was a sentence in Lojban (carried on in English) was entirely within the A framework, yet came up with a different number of sentences --and different boundaries -- within the same text. |