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

Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra



My objection was to refining those tags to the point of just being the word definition.  But even that may seems to generous of me.  Saying that Tom (who is, in fact, a block of wood) is a dog is not nonsense, it is merely false.  Saying that the property of being blue is a dog is nonsense, so restricting x1 of 'gerku' to nonproperties for the sake of sticking to sensible utterances is fine.  What is more, even that seems unnecessary in most cases: if you understand what 'gerku' means, you know that ideas can't be it, and similarly for most other cases.  There are (quite) a few cases where it is not obvious what can go thee and for them some guidelines would be helpful, like the one about events for x2 of 'djica'. 


From: Oren <get.oren@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 7:38:54 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

Re:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 17:14, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
So you can't make a false statement in Lojban? Or at least not one about dogs?  About the outer limit of usefulness here is to refer to the abstractors (sorry) that typically occur in each argument place, when there are somre and otherwise just leave it open.

I have been talking this whole time about encouraging sensicalness, which is very different from restricting grammatical soundness (see "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). The end results would specifically be used for "recommended" usages, and never for deciding what can and can't be said in Lojban.

And I also argue that the outer limit of usefulness being restricted to abstractors is not the case, as such things as "animate," "inanimate" would I feel have pretty immediate application. They also exhibit the hierarchical nature of these tags, since all animate/inanimate things would be physical things. Do we have anywhere a list of all sumti locations that are physical things? Do we furthermore have a list of which of those things is animate and which not?

I've heard from several other people aside from myself that this information would be useful to some, whether for learning or for reference. I don't see how "only being able to say true things" relates to the discussion, because what I'm talking about is "allowing people to be sure they are at least saying sensical things." And for the great many non-fluent lojbanists, I think that making it easier to make sense is not a bad thing.

...

Or did I just attack a straw man? You say it's fine to say "A block of wood is a canine." And I agree with you, but add that there should be a way to know that what you're saying is not as "sensical" as "A wolf is a canine."

Or a more practical example, when I wrote my infamously erroneous sentence "mi kakne lo bajra," fifty lojbanists shouldn't have had to spend 50 minutes each writing explanations, when there could have been a reference sheet somewhere that said "{ lo bajra } doesn't make sense here. Did you mean { lo nu bajra } ?" 

Maybe I'm just addicted to automating anything I find to be needlessly arbitrary.

co'o mi'e korbi

--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Somerville, MA 02144

--
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.

--
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.