In a message dated 3/9/2002 10:48:39 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:>What about {su'o broda cu zasti}? Presumably false, but also I-, so it So I see, but it has the no importing set at its base -- what I mean bybeing unable to decipher the principles involved here. <Well, And seems to have understood me, so I can at least consider that my failure to explain it to you may not be entirely my fault.> Well, having the same delusions about {ro} probably helps working through this. <>The set can be empty, but then the reference to its members has to be >treated in whatever way is appropriate for expressions that don't have a >referent. I'm not sure what the Lojban rule is about that, if there is >one. If you're not sure that there is a Lojban rule, why is the one I'm proposing against Lojban?> General principle: a rule based on a false assumption is very likely going to turn out to be the wrong rule. It turns out that there are several contextually dependent rules about meaningless expressions, but I have to admit that none of them is very clear -- usage not having decided nor authority. <If we don't even have Lojban rules, the ones I'm proposing are not against Lojban rules. An of course if you would show that my proposal gives rise to inaccuracy or incoherence I would have to shut up about it, but you haven't.> Same principle. Your rules may not be incoherent in themselves but they are incompatible with Lojban principles. Whether they are a better set of rules will have to wait for the Lojban set to appear. I've sent around a first shot for comment, and then we can see what develops. <I hardly think the existential import of {ro} warrants a new language. Would anyone ever notice that they are two different languages?> I think they they might at a number of crucial points -- exactly when existential plays a role -- issues like whether or not there are workable peace proposals, for example, regardless of whether all of them are flawed. <I'm moving this back to jboske then. The problem is that reply-to in jboske is not sent to the list, so I probably end up bringing it back to lojban by mistake.> It's already happened, so I think that -- on the off chance anybody else paid any attention -- we should continue of Lojban. |