Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:15 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:56 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> But the event of wearing a hat is abstract in Lojban terminology
>
> I know, that's why I say Lojban terminology is so haywired sometimes.
>
> **I don't see the problem here; "abstract term" means one whose selbri (God I
> hate Lb terminology) is constructed using cmavo of a certain kind (or array of
> kinds).

Are "lo fasnu", "lo se ckaji", "lo se djuno", "lo se viska" abstract,
by that definition? Their selbri are not constructed using cmavo of
the kind you have in mind.

>> (and semantics, since it is a type or some such notion)
>
> So when I say:
>
>     mi viska lo nu do dasni lo mapku
>
> is there some problem? Is that a different sense of "viska" from:
>
>     mi viska lo mapku
>
> **No, but it is looking at a different object, in this case allowing for
> delusions or or other sorts of misseeings.  If you're sure your perception there
> is veridical (love slipping that word in from time to time) then go ahead and
> raise.  You still may be wrong, of course, but that was always a risk. 'nu' is
> probably not the best choice for an abstractor here.

So "abstractions" can be visible. What would be the best choice of
"abstractor" here, if not "nu"?


> The plan was never a coherent one, and the implementation was a total
> disaster, since many people are now convinced that "mi djica ta" for
> "I want that" is incorrect Lojban.
>
> **Well, it is true that the need to be careful in these places has been
> overstressed, with the results you report, that doesn't mean the plan was a bad
> one nor incoherent.

I still don't see how it is coherent to require hats to always be
tokens, but allowing hat-wearings to be sometimes types and sometimes
tokens. There is nothing in the semantics of hats and hat-wearings to
warrant the distinction, nor in the syntax of "lo mapku" and "lo
mapnundasni".

> It may be that the choice of abstractors to use was wrong
> (I personally think it all comes down to propositions, since I am reasonably
> sure they exist and am much less sure about any of the others).

Would you have propositions be visible, or just desirable? If just
desirable, would they be desirable in the same way that objects can be
desirable?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.