From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 08:20:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 15:20:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 71237 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 15:18:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.5b.1ad7082b (4353) for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5b.1ad7082b.28be61be@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:22 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5b.1ad7082b.28be61be_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_5b.1ad7082b.28be61be_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/28/2001 10:17:24 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu writes: > (1) A Record, or even a Stab At A Record, is not a place to be making new > proposals. > Note that it was NOT a record but a place to discuss what the record should be. But second, it contains nothing new (except the all-{ce'u} proposal, which seems to have been about all anyone saw) and merely tried to organize what was presented (the addition filling a gap in those presentations). <(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> Also Gebrueder Martin, the last two would mean the same thing, but not what you want, on a bet, i.e. both are {ka ce'u prami ce'u} on my scheme, and the first means just what you want on my scheme as yours. The trouble is that any scheme that omits some {ce'u} will have this result in some configuration. The task was to minimize bad results, minimize the number of words needed, and keep the originals as much as possible. Without glorking. Unfortunately you nor anyone else wants to do without glorking, so this -- and every other schme wiht these golas, will not do. This was why I have said a few dozen times now "Decide what you want and declare it to be so" but in general y'all would rather keep up the prentense of wanting pure clarity while in fact holding out for clsoe to maximal imprecision. <(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.> Sounds reasonable to me, as does And's proposal. This is not yet something to decide then. <(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.> It is often hard to figure out who actually said what in a pile of nested quotations that span the entire histroy of the issue (people have stopped copying the routings at least), so I am unsure in many cases; I screwed up the one attribution I made, notice. But I think, xod spotted that {du'u} is {ka} with no implicit {ce'u} (scheme 1), And provided the "all implict are {ce'u}" version (scheme 5), though he assigned it to {si'o}. Scheme 4 was mine. Scheme 1 and 2 are various people's attempts to figure out what people were doing before {ce'u} -- probably Cowan formulated then\m at some time. <(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.)> The argument, which was given explicitly to someone suggsting that {si'o} is in with {ka} is 1) {si'o} has a place for the ideationizer and {ka} does not and 2) the referent of {ka} is a function from tuples to truth values (a property) and {si'o} is a mental event or something closely related to one (its content, say). The latter needs expansion but holds in so far as it has gone. This was not the place to carry that particular point on. --part1_5b.1ad7082b.28be61be_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/28/2001 10:17:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
nicholas@uci.edu writes:


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


Note that it was NOT a record but a place to discuss what the record should
be.  But second, it contains nothing new (except the all-{ce'u} proposal,
which seems to have been about all anyone saw) and merely tried to organize
what was presented (the addition filling a gap in those presentations).

<(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>

Also Gebrueder Martin, the last two would mean the same thing, but not what
you want, on a bet, i.e. both are {ka ce'u prami ce'u} on my scheme, and the
first means just what you want on my scheme as yours.  The trouble is that
any scheme that omits some {ce'u} will have this result in some
configuration.  The task was to minimize bad results, minimize the number of
words needed, and keep the originals as much as possible.  Without glorking.  
Unfortunately you nor anyone else wants to do without glorking, so this --
and every other schme wiht these golas, will not do.  This was why I have
said a few dozen times now "Decide what you want and declare it to be so" but
in general y'all would rather keep up the prentense of wanting pure clarity
while in fact holding out for clsoe to maximal imprecision.

<(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.>

Sounds reasonable to me, as does And's proposal.  This is not yet something
to decide then.

<(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.>

It is often hard to figure out who actually said what in a pile of nested
quotations that span the entire histroy of the issue (people have stopped
copying the routings at least), so I am unsure in many cases; I screwed up
the one attribution I made, notice.  But I think, xod spotted that {du'u} is
{ka} with no implicit {ce'u} (scheme 1), And provided the "all implict are
{ce'u}" version (scheme 5), though he assigned it to {si'o}.  Scheme 4 was
mine.  Scheme 1 and 2 are various people's attempts to figure out what people
were doing before {ce'u} -- probably Cowan formulated then\m at some time.

<(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.)>

The argument, which was given explicitly to someone suggsting that {si'o} is
in with {ka} is 1) {si'o} has a place for the ideationizer and {ka} does not
and 2) the referent of {ka} is a function from tuples to truth values (a
property) and {si'o} is a mental event or something closely related to one
(its content, say).  The latter needs expansion but holds in so far as it has
gone.  This was not the place to carry that particular point on.




--part1_5b.1ad7082b.28be61be_boundary--