From nicholas@uci.edu Tue Aug 28 20:15:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 03:15:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 674 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 03:15:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 03:15:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 03:15:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02079; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS *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} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias