From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 01 12:27:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 20:27:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 95934 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 20:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 20:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 20:26:49 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.161.3374dde (3924) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <161.3374dde.29130a04@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:26:44 EST Subject: Re: countability (was: RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_161.3374dde.29130a04_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_161.3374dde.29130a04_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/1/2001 9:42:53 AM Central Standard Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > You and pc are supporters of B. I think most other people take it for=20 > granted=20 > that A is the case. I seem to recall Jorge being a proponent of A. >=20 I refuse to be pinned down on this one. I tend to use Lojban like English= =20 and so get A's all over the place, but I recognize that Lojban is not Engli= sh=20 and certainly some aspects of lojban make more sense from B. Hating every= =20 minute the following, I have to agree with Quine that what Lojban words=20 really mean is not something that can be spelled out except in Lojban. May I add that I find it odd that And, a proponent of a new (relatively in= =20 this discussion) metaphysics which is at least more obviously compatible wi= th=20 B, should at this point be a strong backer of A. Yes, for thoroughly SAE enculturated folks that we all are. RElevance to=20 what is going on in Lojban? =20 This is not obvious; we just might have to recognize that others would come= =20 up with a different "count" -- some people follow Mr. Whatsis's moves bette= r=20 than others. No, we don't have verbometers we can read a number off the scale of or=20 compute from other readings.=20=20 Not obvious. I had assumed that the discussion about what was a sentence i= n=20 Lojban (carried on in English) was entirely within the A framework, yet cam= e=20 up with a different number of sentences --and different boundaries -- withi= n=20 the same text. --part1_161.3374dde.29130a04_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/1/2001 9:42:53 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@ucl= an.ac.uk writes:


You and pc are supporters= of B. I think most other people take it for granted=20
that A is the case. I seem to recall Jorge being a proponent of A.


I refuse to be pinned down on this one.  I tend to use Lojban like= English and so get A's all over the place, but I recognize that Lojban is = not English and certainly some aspects of lojban make more sense from B. &n= bsp;Hating every minute the following, I have to agree with Quine that what= Lojban words really mean is not something that can be spelled out except i= n Lojban.
May I add that I find it odd that And, a proponent of a new (relatively= in this discussion) metaphysics which is at least more obviously compatibl= e with B, should at this point be a strong backer of A.

<As for me, I think A better matches the way users see things, and i= t
probably makes life less complicated.>
Yes, for thoroughly SAE enculturated folks that we all are.  RElev= ance to what is going on in Lojban?
=20
<If we went with B, then in order to talk about two words without re= lying on glorking, we'd have to use a lujvo, valsi zei selci,=A0 or other e= quivalent complex expression.>

This is not obvious; we just might have to recognize that others would = come up with a different "count" -- some people follow Mr. Whatsis's moves = better than others.

<Possibly the best would be to have analogues of measurement selbri:
=A0 This kilos ten=A0 =3D this weighs 10 kilos
=A0 This words ten =3D this is ten words.>

No, we don't have verbometers we can read a number off the scale of or = compute from other readings.  

<But this debate only arises under story B>
Not obvious.  I had assumed that the discussion about what was a s= entence in Lojban (carried on in English) was entirely within the A framewo= rk, yet came up with a different number of sentences --and different bounda= ries -- within the same text. --part1_161.3374dde.29130a04_boundary--