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

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

The fact that {zo'e} gets its meaning from context, specifically from the place it fills, is enough to undercut the definition of {lo}, since the referent (andf the class from which the referent is drawn) can then change with each use.  But, further, the referent of {zo'e} has to be one that makes the head bridi true else it fails in its fundamental purpose, to fill the missing pieces in a claim (which is not going to be falsified -- we hope -- by what is not said).  This does not mean that nothing but platitudes can be said in Lojban, only that the nonplatitudinous parts are explicit. What {zo'e} contributes (if anything), depends upon its scope (not resolved, but presumably shortest) and is only a problem in its supposed role in {lo}.  This is an argumentum ad absurdum against that role.

Insofar as parser expansions use MEX they are suspect, as is all of MEX ex officio.  Once the core is properly dealt with (and this, again ex officio, does not involve MEX) MEX can be examined to see what way of dealing ith it fits (or can be made to fit) with the basics.


On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 6:18 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:



On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:08 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 So, insert the definition into its proper place: {lo broda cu brode} = {ze'a noi broda cu brode}. This latter is a tautology, since {ze'a} always refers to a thing which makes the predication true.

I don't think that's the right definition for "zo'e". If zo'e made any sentence in which it appears true, it would be hard to express anything but platitudes in Lojban. You would be forced to fill every place of every predicate you use in order to say anything meaningful.

"zo'e" gets its referents from the context, but it is not necessarily something that will make the sentence in which it appears true.


Finally, a practical note. Whatever the point of all this is, dealing with MEX now is bad idea. Given that the creators of Lojban don't know how MEX works and, to a great extent, don't even know how it should work, trying to explain it now is a thankless task foreddomed to failure. Eventually, when you have a successful theory (of whatever sort you are working on) for the core of Lojban, you will be in a position to apply that theory to MEX to explain how parts of it work and to criticize and guide the development of other parts. Hopefully. But not now and not yet as a part of e\developing that theory.

I tend to agree, but since some MEX are used in the parser expansions, we either need to understand what they mean or replace them with more suitable expansions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.