From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 02 07:55:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 14:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 80266 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 14:55:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 14:55:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 14:55:34 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:32:55 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:04:37 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:03:55 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> 10/01/01 08:51pm >>> #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: #> Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established princip= les #> you seemed to be threatening to demolish: #>=20 #> * Semantics of nonsubordinate bridi should be unchanged if the same #> bridi were subordinate. # #Not a problem. All the cases so far are subordinate and I make no claims= =20 #that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated. But you know that. I thought that you are proposing that "le mamta be ce'u" means "the mother-of function" in nonsubordinate bridi and, by the above principle, in subordinate bridi. Jorge and I have both complained about the unhappy implications of that for subordinate bridi. #> * Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else # #This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false in man= y=20 #cases: #da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc. I've addressed this in another message. But I think it's true to say that it was a generally accepted principle before you expressed dissent. (As usu= al, these generalizations pertain only to people who have views.) The examples alone are not enough to demonstrate to my satisfaction, howeve= r cooperative I try to be, that the principle is false. See my earlier messag= e. #> <* Sumti phrase X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level as=20 #> sumti Y,=20 #> and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X i= s=20 #> not within Y.> # #Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama} it d= oes=20 #not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bil kla= ma}=20 #within which it lies=20 la bil is not at the same bridi level as la djan because la bil is within a= bridi that does not contain la djan. As is usual, the above principle contains an implicit "Other things being e= qual....", and the example you give, where a sumti X contains a bridi which contains sumti Y, is an case where other things are not equal. #nor do I see how to paraphrase it out except by external=20 #identification, leaving the identified form still subordinated. # #So, I don't see myself as threatening any of these principles, they are de= ad=20 #already. I'm getting increasingly pessimistic about the chances of you and others ever achieving consensus on issues that are initially disagreed about. # # #So problems you have with it linguistically, I suppose. Linguistically pe= r=20 #se there don't seem to be any. I don't see how you can say that. Jorge and I have pointed out problems and you have not succeeded in persuading us that these problems do not exist. Yes, you don't think the problems exist, but I can't see it as any kind of meaningful contribution for the debate for you to simply say "there don't seem to be any". # # #I think we are both getting a bit annoyed by what seems to each of us a=20 #tendency on the other's part to go off in obscurantist and shifting=20 #bloviation rather than simply answering fundamental questions. I think th= at,=20 #in so far as i have done what you take to be that, it is merely a matter o= f=20 #not being able to write very clear sentences even when things are very cle= ar=20 #in my head. I suspect you ahve the same problem. So, rather than=20 #continuing this discussion (which has gone round Brown's barn at least thr= ee=20 #times now wihtout any visible progress) we retire to get a good=20 #short-sentence exposition of just what indirect questions and {ce'u} do on= =20 #our repsective theories, with step by step explanations of the meanings of= =20 #each phase of the game. If you are like me, you think that you have done= =20 #this time and again, but Ican assure that you have not, at least not in a = way=20 #that came to me as coherent or consistent or even to the point (and I imag= ine=20 #you have the same assurance for me). May be it would help to have a third= =20 #party (xorxes? cowan -- who has avoided this discussion like the plague?)= =20 #suggest a set of questions to be answered and a format for answering that= =20 #would draw us into simple speech (and perhaps a bit more honesty too). I'm glad you say this. The holidays being well over now, it gets increasing= ly stressful to make the time for Lojban, and hence increasingly stressful whe= n the efforts of writing messages aren't repaid by the debate moving forwards= . My ordinarily long fuse had been getting decidedly shorter, so it will be g= ood to step back and mutually realize that we need to recast the debate in a more measured and a more perspicuous manner. --And.