Re: [lojban] Use and abuse of sets

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>

At 10:45 AM 03/01/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la lojbab cusku di'e
> >Example: your "chief of mass" -
> >masses being amorphous and not having members, it doesn't seem to make
> >sense that they can have a chief member.
>
>Of course masses do have members. Each of the members of
>{lei broda} is a {le broda}.

Not all masses are sums of like individuals.  And sometimes the individuals 
do not have the mass properties.  Your body is a mass of organs but the 
members of la xorxes are not le rango, and in fact you as a mass have no 
members per se

What are the members of lei djacu?  Are they individual molecules?  But if 
I pour 3 portions of water into a tub, I might well describe that as "lei 
ci djacu", yet it would be impossible to delimit what each of le djacu were 
that comprised the mass.

>  Each of ko'a and ko'e is
>a member of the mass ko'a joi ko'e. Call them "components"
>if you don't like "members", it doesn't matter. If it
>doesn't have members, or components, it makes no sense
>calling it a mass, it is just an ordinary entity. The only
>thing that makes it a mass is its composition.

No, what makes a mass is the loss of individual identity of any 
identifiable components the moment that you start talking of their mass 
properties.  Or shall we say that any possible manifestation of the mass 
properties is a putative member.

> >I'll look again, but I am basing my argument on the original discussions
> >that brought these into the language, and not so much on JCB's last word,
> >which resulted in dissent.
>
>I was describing the current state of Loglan. That is the
>one I like, not the original confusion.

I would contend that there is no "current state of Loglan".  There was a 
state in JCB's head, but he isn't here.  Alex has a state of Loglan in mind 
when he writes in Loglan, but given that JCB was massively editing what 
Alex (and anyone else) wrote before it appeared, that state of mind did not 
match JCB's Loglan.  Slavik is the only other person who has written much 
in "current Loglan", and I have not determined what the characteristics are 
of Slavik's Loglan.  And of course the TLI logician did not agree with JCB 
as to this very issue as to what the state of the language was or must be.

Such is the problem with not having a baseline.

> > > >Prior to that they had no equivalent to "lo"
> > >
> > >They still don't, they use "ne" (Lojban {pa}).
> >
> >It is not clear to me that their indefinites are veridical.
>
>I don't know what you mean. They don't have our "lo",
>and they use "ne" where we use "lo". That is all I am
>saying.

It is not clear that this is a one to one correspondence (i.e. they may not 
always use "ne" when we use "lo" and vice versa)

> > > We don't really have anything quite like
> > >their "lo", which is not really very well defined anyway.
> >
> >It has been well-defined several times, with some degree of
> >self-contradiction.  I base my claim on the classic definition.
>
>Could you quote the classic definition?
>I base my claims on the current state of the language.

I refer you to L1 discussions, which are the only standard for the state of 
the language other than the unpublished grammar and unpublished decisions 
of the keugru.

> >All the
> >stuff that has happened in recent years has been JCB trying to work out the
> >impossible contradiction of that classic definition.
>
>I thought you just said it was well-defined at some point.
>Was it well-defined or impossibly contradictory?

Yes.  Both.

> > >I like the final state of the Loglan articles better than
> > >the Lojban one. Fortunately the Lojban system can evolve
> > >painlessly and naturally to the Loglan one if it proves
> > >to be better.
> >
> >It isn't and it won't.
>
>Because you say so?

Not hardly.  I am making a statement of opinion and a prediction, as well 
as expressing a hope.

>The evolution I envision is one of usage. As people get
>more of a feeling for the language I expect them to realize
>the pointlessness of having the set articles along with the
>mass articles and just stop using them.

That may or may not eliminate them from the language.

>Why make things complicated when there is no need?

What is needed in everyday speech may be different from what is needed in 
specific contexts.  I don't expect people to start spouting of MEX to each 
other in everyday usage either.  But mathematician Lojbanists might.

> > > >TLI Loglan has no cmavo for most of the needed MEX structures.
> > >
> > >Aren't they lucky!
> > >
> > >What do you mean by "needed"? They are not used in Lojban yet,
> > >so it must be a theoretical need.
> >
> >It is a need specified in JCB's vision of the language.
>
>Ok, not a real need then. I respect JCB's vivion very much,
>but one thing is his vision and another the actual language.

I guess we have a different definition.  I have always meant it when I said 
"Lojban - A Realization of Loglan", where the latter word refers to that 
which JCB envisioned.  At some point Lojban will progress beyond JCB's 
vision, I hope, but that time has not yet come.

> >He actually had a
> >MEX in 1962, but threw it out when it a) proved less than adequate and b)
> >would not YACC.  Of course it is a theoretical need.  Much of Loglan is
> >purely theoretical.  We cannot know what speakers of a logical language
> >will need.
>
>One way to start to know is to look at what speakers of
>the logical language Lojban are using and not using.

Nick isn't saying much these days, and we have no others.  (i.e. the point 
is that there is way too little usage to determine usefulness based on what 
is actually used, especially when talking about things that are intended 
for use in niche contexts).

> >But the fact is that mathematicians do talk about mathematics
> >and read off mathematical expressions, and the current English way of
> >reading mathematical expressions is grammatically ambiguous.
>
>And the proposed Lojban way of reading mathematical expressions
>is hoplessly inadequate for mathematicians and hoplessly
>complicated for everyday use.

How do we know?

> >Not all of the language is used to handle problems that occur in everyday
> >English, or any natlang conversation.
>
>My point is that the parts of the grammar that are not used
>in everyday conversation don't really belong in the language.

None of Lojban is used in everyday conversation.

>Of course a lot of specialized vocabulary is not used in
>everyday language, but specialized grammar? What language
>has a specialized grammar for technical fields?

Mathematics.  Computer languages that make use of natlang keywords (e.g. 
COBOL and the various restricted domain human-computer interfaces))  Air 
traffic control.  Probably a lot of others because there is little study of 
the specialization of language within a restricted discipline other than a 
focus on the jargon.

> >Loglan was always intended to go
> >beyond that in potential.  (How often to we use some of the obscure logical
> >connectives, yet these seem quintessential Loglan?)
>
>All four connectives are used in conversation. I would
>say e, a, u, o is their order of frequency.

I don't think I have seen "o" other than in "onai".  Maybe once or twice, 
but Nick wrote some MEX once, too.

lojbab

lojbab
----
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:  http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wait for a credit decision?  Get one instantly!  Apply for
the Capital One 9.9% Fixed APR Visa Platinum!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1895/1/_/17627/_/951940814/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com