From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 12:51:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 19:50:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 76955 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 19:51:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.2b.1c123834 (3926) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2b.1c123834.28ea234c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:40 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] zo'e interpretation To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2b.1c123834.28ea234c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_2b.1c123834.28ea234c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 10/1/2001 11:53:21 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Anyway, I'm not trying to persuade anybody to change the interpretation r= ule > for zo'e; I'm just pointing out that your document is a little misleading= =20 > when it > says that no interpretation rule is viable. >=20 What I said: "This has led to occasional efforts to make Lojban more like FOPL by=20 insisting that all terms always be stated or that, at least, there is a=20 unique way of restoring unstated terms (more informative than {zo=E2=80=99e= }) that=20 can always be applied when misunderstandings appear.=C2=A0 Even the propone= nts of=20 such moves find them impossible to stick to in general writing or=20 conversation, even for very special narrow cases, but the efforts recur=20 periodically." That is, no one has come up with a way of uniquely restroring omitted terms= =20 that always works correctly and that a person will actually use. That is=20 quite a way from saying that no interpetation rule (I might argue with the= =20 use of "rule" here, of course, as opposed to "guidelines," perhaps) is=20 viable. People make reasoned interpretations all the time -- even=20 prerationalized ones. But nothing like the rules (which got everybody up i= n=20 arms) for finding the {ce'u}s in a ka phrase that had no overt ones -- and = it=20 actually would work. --part1_2b.1c123834.28ea234c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 10/1/2001 11:53:21 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uc= lan.ac.uk writes:


Anyway, I'm not trying to= persuade anybody to change the interpretation rule
for zo'e; I'm just pointing out that your document is a little misleadi= ng when it
says that no interpretation rule is viable.


What I said:
"This has led to occasional efforts to make Lojban more like FOPL by in= sisting that all terms always be stated or that, at least, there is a uniqu= e way of restoring unstated terms (more informative than {zo=E2=80=99e}) th= at can always be applied when misunderstandings appear.=C2=A0 Even the prop= onents of such moves find them impossible to stick to in general writing or= conversation, even for very special narrow cases, but the efforts recur pe= riodically."

That is, no one has come up with a way of uniquely restroring omitted t= erms that always works correctly and that a person will actually use.  = ;That is quite a way from saying that no interpetation rule (I might argue = with the use of "rule" here, of course, as opposed to "guidelines," perhaps= ) is viable. People make reasoned interpretations all the time -- even prer= ationalized ones.  But nothing like the rules (which got everybody up = in arms) for finding the {ce'u}s in a ka phrase that had no overt ones -- a= nd it actually would work.

--part1_2b.1c123834.28ea234c_boundary--