[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o

Pardon my not replying earlier, but due to overload in getting my kids started at school, I'm around 2 weeks and 300 messages behind in even SKIMMING Lojban List. 

At 03:14 PM 8/24/01 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/24/2001 12:02:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world
#(whatever that may be) events.

Not in actual usage, AFAICS.


there isn't enough actual usage to tell much
A point I have been trying to stress whenever I say "let usage decide". Usage will not have decided while there are still only a handful of people competent enough at the easy stuff that they are willing to essay using the more complex or abstract ones. And I daresay there are a lot of people who might USE the language more if they could successfully pull themselves away from the endless arguments ABOUT the language. 


 and what little there is is
unclear, open to any of the available interpretations.  I think the
"individual mental event" reading works best in most cases and not too badly
in all.

<Given its gloss and its membership in NU, there are two sensical
interpretations of si'o.
Membership in a selma'o may imply NOTHING about its semantics. Membership in NU means only that it serves as the head of a phrase that includes a bridi and is terminated by a possibly elidable kei. 


 One where it belongs with du'u and ka,
and one where it belongs with li'i.
How about one where it stands by itself, developing its own meaning? A si'o abstraction "means" NOTHING other than that which fills the x1 of sidbo, a ka abstraction is an x2 of ckaji and a few other predicates, a ni abstraction is an x1 of klani, a sedu'u is an x2 of cusku. Deciding what place structures applied to these abstractions did some constraining of the meanings, but relatively little. Arguing whether a si'o is a kind of ka is a philosophical argument, of the sort that can never be settled, because it hinges on whether one is willing to consider an idea to be a characteristic of something (i.e., is the x1 of sidbo an x2 of ckaji?) We are NOT going to agree, and the argument is therefore fruitless. 


 The intepretations are incompatible
Only in accord with some philosophies. Other philosophies can reconcile the irreconcilable. 

If {si'o}, a person's ideas, are {ka}-like then they are functions of some

sort, not events at all -- the events being at most function detectors, like
observed colors are function detectors for say {ka ce'u xunre} and reality is
thus all in the uniform metalanguage.  On the other hand, if the proposal is
to make {ka} and the like just like {si'o}, personal mental events, the all
is reduced to the contents of an individual consciousness, my experiences,
say.
Saying more or less what I said. Equating the places of two different predicates in some absolute manner serves as a metaphysical restriction on how we look at the universe. Lojban tries to avoid such metaphysical constraints. Semantic conventions are thus to some extent bad things if they are rationalized, because the rationalization will always be in view of some particular metaphysical outlook. 

And:

> Your
> {ka}-{du'u} reading can be done with better conventions about {ka} and {du'u} 

You and anybody else are welcome to explain what these better conventions are.
Until you do so, and the explanations survive scrutiny, we have a license to
suppose that there are no better conventions.
The best convention is no convention at all. Let conventions, if they must exist, develop through converging usage, representing what people do in order to make themselves understood to each other. That is the ONLY way we can find out what an "idea abstraction" is, to see what people can manage to communicate using it. 


> (and Lord knows there are enough offered for your choice.)

You don't seem to realize that they were all attempts to reconcile conflicting
desiderata.
Correct, and we don't even know if we have all of the desiderata out on the table yet (and will not know until people have made more effort to try to apply things). 


They aren't all on a par, competing with one another. They're
attempts to converge on the best solution.
I refuse to negotiate meanings of Lojban words in English because I think it is impossible to do so, and probably undesirable to try (and unfortunately at this point I don't have time to do it by USING them in Lojban (talking about them in Lojban won't necessarily improve on talking about them in English). 


I would need you to come up with decent illustrative sentences if you want
to persuade me that the predicate for expressing someone's mental events
has to be in NU.
It has to be in NU because that is the way that sidbo is defined - it requires a predication in x1, and NU is the grammatical apparatus for taking a predication as a whole and inserting it in a sumti without necessarily focussing on exactly one place of that predication in the way that LE does. 

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