Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:03:55 +0100

>>> <[email-masked]> 10/01/01 08:51pm >>>
[email-masked] writes:
#> Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established principles
#> you seemed to be threatening to demolish:
#> 
#> * 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 
#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 many 
#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 usual,
these generalizations pertain only to people who have views.)

The examples alone are not enough to demonstrate to my satisfaction, however
cooperative I try to be, that the principle is false. See my earlier message.

#> <* Sumti phrase X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level as 
#> sumti Y, 
#> and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is 
#> not within Y.>
#
#Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama} it does 
#not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bil klama} 
#within which it lies 

la bil is not at the same bridi level as la djan because la bil is within abridi
that does not contain la djan.

As is usual, the above principle contains an implicit "Other things being equal....",
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 
#identification, leaving the identified form still subordinated.
#
#So, I don't see myself as threatening any of these principles, they are dead 
#already.

I'm getting increasingly pessimistic about the chances of you and others
ever achieving consensus on issues that are initially disagreed about.

#<It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, nothing) -- 
#that 
#{le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main
#clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and
#I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.>
#
#So problems you have with it linguistically, I suppose. Linguistically per 
#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".

#<It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, nothing) -- 
#that 
#{le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main
#clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and
#I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.>
#
#I think we are both getting a bit annoyed by what seems to each of us a 
#tendency on the other's part to go off in obscurantist and shifting 
#bloviation rather than simply answering fundamental questions. I think that, 
#in so far as i have done what you take to be that, it is merely a matter of 
#not being able to write very clear sentences even when things are very clear 
#in my head. I suspect you ahve the same problem. So, rather than 
#continuing this discussion (which has gone round Brown's barn at least three 
#times now wihtout any visible progress) we retire to get a good 
#short-sentence exposition of just what indirect questions and {ce'u} do on 
#our repsective theories, with step by step explanations of the meanings of 
#each phase of the game. If you are like me, you think that you have done 
#this time and again, but Ican assure that you have not, at least not in a way 
#that came to me as coherent or consistent or even to the point (and I imagine 
#you have the same assurance for me). May be it would help to have a third 
#party (xorxes? cowan -- who has avoided this discussion like the plague?) 
#suggest a set of questions to be answered and a format for answering that 
#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 increasingly
stressful to make the time for Lojban, and hence increasingly stressful when
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 good
to step back and mutually realize that we need to recast the debate in a
more measured and a more perspicuous manner.

--And.