[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] za'e "postnex"
At 03:53 PM 1/26/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
Lojbab:
> >So the official convention is that they are metalinguistic, parenthetical
> >and subject to no further conventions
>
> Metalinguistic, yes. But I don't see how that restricts anything dealing
> with quantification or scope
It doesn't prevent you making metalinguistic statements about quantification
and scope. But if you try to establish conventions, you subvert the
Standard dialect, according to which there are no special conventions
applying to sei phrases.
Where does the standard dialect forbid the establishment of
special/unofficial/informal conventions regarding anything besides
grammar-parsing?
Unofficial conventions should be used only
where the dialect fails to supply any interpretation.
As I noted, in Mex we explicitly EXPECT that there will be unofficial
conventions that override the parsed operator precedence.
Dating way back to when Athelstan was still active, we discussed
metalinguistic conventions that might be useful/necessary to writing Lojban
skaldic poetry; I believe it is in an old JL issue.
I can imagine a Lojban poet metalinguistically redefining any semantics he
chooses. One creative translation of "If wishes were horses, then beggars
would ride" would metalinguistically redefine a Lojban brivla normally
meaning "wish" to instead mean la'e zo xirma.
> I don't have any idea why you would think that anything in Lojban isn't
> subject to additional conventions, should a group of speakers decide to
> adopt them, provided that they can communicate what they are, and provided
> that the text parses
I would think this because if they established additional conventions
then they would be establishing a new dialect, since a dialect is
defined by a body of conventions. So nothing prevents a group of
Lojban speakers from adopting additional conventions -- that is
precisely what underlies a lot of jboske and Academic Lojban -- but
one cannot add additional conventions to Standard Lojban and still
end up with Standard Lojban.
If the conventions are marked and do not contradict some immutable parts of
the language, I have no problem with such additional or overriding
conventions. An experimental cmavo itself marks a non-standard
convention. I may not like and I may not understand most of your
experimental cmavo, but I don't consider their use to be a violation of the
Lojban standard, especially since such experimental cmavo are explicitly
permitted. (There is some problem when an experimental cmavo would require
a new selma'o and thereby a variant grammar, a situation on which the
standards intentionally remained silent).
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