Subject: Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:15:04 -0700 (PDT)

*sigh*

(1) A Record, or even a Stab At A Record, is not a place to be making new
proposals.

(2) PC, you will be maddened, but Hier steh' ich, ich kann nich anders:
I'm with Rob. For bound {ka}, we *always* want {ka} to be a property. So I
should be able to say all of the following:

mi sisku leka se prami
mi sisku leka ce'u se prami
mi sisku leka prami ce'u

To propose that these would mean different things (different ce'u
readings) *still* looks capricious, and there is no precedent for it. We
use {ce'u} as a disambiguator; so such a scheme cannot fly.

(3) ke'a does not resolve what to do when there are embedded places in
*its* abstraction;
coincidentally, I was thinking of this just this morning, walking to work.
(More evidence I've been doing too much Lojban.) Since the verdict is that
they behave similarly, let's not fix ce'u in those contexts before we have
a clear tendency on ke'a.

(4) If the Wiki has proven one thing, it's that accounts of
proposals as disembodied, without details of who proposed and who agreed,
rankle people. OK, they rankle me. Please take the time to name names; we
are not at such an Olympian stage that we can afford to abstract people
out.

(5) If Michael is speaking of lesi'o gerku, it is clear to me that (as
with much of what he writes :-) ) he is very much speaking about his own
personal construct -- here, his personal construct of doghood. So I'm
completely sanguine about {le si'o gerku} = {le si'o ce'u gerku
ce'u kei be mi}. The claim you are now making is that si'o is
particular to a thinker, ka isn't. (Btw I don't recall seeing
this argument made explicit
before -- and the onus is, again, on you NOT to be making these arguments
in a record, which is supposed to summarise discussion, not covertly
introduce new arguments.)

This counterargument is somewhat less lame than the "it's an instance of
{nu}" you raised before. My answer to it is the same as that to Lojbab
objecting to his Protaean-ka being a {du'u}: if you object so much, turn
off the x2 of si'o, or du'u, with zi'o. One could also go radical
relativist, and say that there *is* no such thing as a "quality of
doghood" without someone construing it so.

This is something that can still be argued about.
But (again agreeing with Rob) I think it better that there be a "special
metalinguistic mode" for free {ka} (which I still think bogus), than that
I should be making claims I don't realise I'm making, simply because I'm
adding in an extra {ce'u} to disambiguate a bound {ka}.

(6) As a
meta-point that should be stated in fairness and all, you and Lojbab are
the only wants that seem to want this Free, all-{ce'u} {ka}. I don't think
that many others have changed their mind. To be precise,

* Rob and I don't
really want it (it took me And's {si'o}-proposal to even understand what
the point of it was at all --- and I would like to think I was not being
deliberately obtuse.)

* And is probably deep-down indifferent, but his
latest stated position shunts Free {ka} off into {si'o}, certainly.

* xorxes is still pro And's proposal with suitable adjustments, as far as
I know. The First Wittenberg Steps Posting
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9940) certainly looks anti
Free {ka}; and I'm pretty sure it was him that said that Free {ka} is all
very well for metalinguistic talk, but not for everyday talk
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9973).

* xod doesn't think {si'o} and Free {ka} are the same thing, and seems to
also think that if you mean {ce'u}, you should explicitly say it. I
construe this as meaning he doesn't like Free {ka}.

* John is judiciously keeping mum, and I commend him for it :-) ; but he
has, in one injudicious moment, expressed himself against an obligatory
all-{ce'u} proposal.

So there's a whole kerfuffle of movement about a meaning at least some of
us think illegitimate to start with, and are disinclined to give *any*
special short form to, outside of a few distinct, not everyday-use
contexts.

But you know what? I'd much rather a "Free {ka} is all-ce'u, bound {ka} is
one-or-two {ce'u}" policy. That's actually what Lojbab wants, at
least (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10028); and since I
think Free {ka} bogus, it can keep the hell out of my hair.

Which I'm now going to go and have cut.

OK, so this ain't over yet. Yippee Do. Comments welcome.

(to xlali cuntu be da ca le purlamdei be le jbedei be da citsi toizo'o)

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
[email-masked] -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias