[lojban] Re: xorlo podcast

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >  The technical details of prelo --
> > admittedly a new term since I got tired of
> > writing "the previously acccepted version of
> > {lo}"
> 
> I don't think there was any "previously
> accepted version
> of {lo}" other than CLL-lo.

While may be open to dispute, the version of {lo}
I was presenting as being that stage is not
something that has been publicaly available for a
long time and has been laid out repeatedly in
discussions with you  -- which is the central
point here.

> > but one introduced with what was in context
> > an adequate explanation -- were put up on the
> > wiki and xorxes commented on that paper
> >
>
(http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban%20Formulae)
> > in some detail.
> 
> I do remember commenting on that page. I don't
> think
> anyone else gave any indication of having read
> it.

 I don't either, but then no one else ever got
into thse disputes, so -- aside from a possibly
uninformed vote in BPFK -- no relevant problem
arose.

> > xorxes was active in the
> > creation of prelo and at one time seemed to
> say
> > he was using it (though I suspect that what
> he
> > was using was an early version of xorlo --
> they
> > hard to tell apart except in details that may
> not
> > turn up for a while).
> 
> Before xorlo, I used {lo'e} as the generic
> gadri, but {lo}
> always as in CLL {su'o lo}. I didn't go through
> any
> intermediate stage. Perhaps what you are
> remembering
> is my use of {lo'e}?


 Maybe, though it has been {lo} rather than
{lo'e} for quite some time now.  I thought you
were responsible for the shift, but, as I said,
it may be that you were already moving toward
xorlo without mentioning (prehaps even without
noticing) the change.
 
> > Indeed, my recollection is that the shift to
> > prelo took place before or soon after CLL
> > appeared (it existed in various forms for
> some
> > time before publication).
> 
> I, on the other hand, don't think there ever
> was a shift
> away from CLL-lo to something that could be
> called prelo,
> unless you are talking of my use of {lo'e}.

Then I wonder what it was that was being
discussed in all those early gadri exchanges,
which appear to me to be about {lo} in
essentially the pattern I am adhering to.
 
> (Certainly there were people misusing CLL-lo
> all the time,
> but those were mistakes, not conscious usage of
> a
> different proposal.)

Well, from a strict point of view, you have been
misusing {lo} for years now, but, like the people
in the discussions I have been in, you were
usually aware and explicit about using -- and
propsoing -- a deviant system.
 
> > {lo broda} =  {su'o lo ro broda} goes back to
> > Loglan (before 1975, probably before 1960,
> but I
> > can't check now).
> 
> It probably dates from the start of Lojban.
> It's unlikely
> to be from Loglan because in Loglan there is
> nothing
> like CLL-lo. Loglan's {lo} is basically the
> same as
> xorlo (as in gavagai and Mr Rabbit).

I threw away my Loglan books a long time ago, but
do remember editing pepers for The Loglanist
which went basically like the arguments we have
been having here over the years.  At one point
JCB did write a murky paper on Loglan {lo} which
seemed to come out with the gavagai explanation
-- but no one took it to seriously and continued
doing what they had done before, which was as
close to the {lo} I am backing as could be done
within the blinders of a positive definition of
{lo}.

I hope, by the bye, that now that we have come up
with a functioning interpretation of xorlo, you
are not now going to change your wish list yet
again (in this case, go back to an earlier one
which got weeded out because it introduced
apparently contradictory elements into the
whole).   The sense in which {lo} has anything to
do with Mr. Rabbit or with gavagai is remote from
the origins of those concepts, to the point that
bringing them up introduces more smoke than
light.  xorlo is a disaster enough for a logical
language, without trying to bring back yet more
remote metaphysical muckery -- with, as usual --
no benefit in any area. 


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.