Subject: RE: [lojban] zo'e interpretation

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 05:09:20 +0100

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/29/2001 7:42:03 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email-masked] writes:

While accepting that such moves aren't part of Lojban, I am
nonetheless a proponent of such moves, and I don't accept that they
can't be stuck to. I won't go into details of what I propose, but
the essence is that the zo'e is interpreted so as to be equivalent
to the weakest possible claim, and that the weakest possible claim
can be griceanly strengthened until it achieves relevance.

Well, they don't seem to get stuck to so far (can't even get people to
decide on what to do with {ce'u} in {ka}). Taking {zo'e} as a mere
existential quantifier or so can be strengthened griceanly, but that will
not be the sort of thing that is wanted, because gricean solution are just
the sort of thing that the restorers don't like: they are contextual and
depend upon the belief web.

They don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to
stick to. I think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is not
said that gricean solutions don't count.

--And.