Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:30:27 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/2002 8:28:05 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> Read it as "intensionally-defined set".
> >>
As opposed to what? I would take this to mean, set defined by its proeprty 
rather than it members, that is to say, a set as we normally talk about them 
(outside set theory, of course).

<<
> that we are 
> interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say. 
>>

I would take it that, whatever its member(s), the set of properties that 
comprise what it is I am looking for an instance of when I am looking for a 
unicorn is more complex than the set of dogs. Of course, as sets they are 
square on a par -- things heaped together period. But concepts are more 
complex than dogs, whence the difference. Your earlier remark suggests that 
you think that the more things there are in a set, the more complex it is, 
but that would only be true of a set of miscellaneous items, where the 
specification is complex. For normal sets, the specifications are about on a 
par, or, if anything, a single-element set designed to be such, will be more 
complex because it has to stor so many things getting in.
I think that complexity is a red herring here.

<<
> But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o} 
> (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all).

I said that {tu'o} is simpler than {lo pa}, by the obvious criterion
of word count.
The crucial thing in this discussion is that only one of the things is 
operant, regardless of how many there are (in many cases we are not sure -- 
or, at least have very different views). So that {tu'o} is a word (but not a 
syllable) shorter than {lo pa} is not relevant and that it is longer than 
{pa} is (if word or syllable count is significant). The extra information 
that {to'u} gives, that furthermore there is only one of them, is irrrelevant 
and so should not be given at space at all, even {'o}.

<<
Quite so. And conversely, to make an inessential claim is a distraction
from the essential claim.
see above

<<
> The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes' 
> {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than 
> xorxes original or modified claims. 

I haven't totally given up on making you able to understand it,
but past experience makes me pessimistic. On the whole, if Jorge
and I understand and agree with each other, I'm usually fairly
confident that we're onto the Right Idea.
I generally agree with that final principle -- you all do have a track record 
after all. But this time, you are so far beyond Cloud-cuckooland for your 
starting point, that I can't even catch up to your presuppositions, let alone 
what you derive from them. Further, since xorxes own description of his idea 
is inconsistent, I don't think even your agreement helps. But, on the other 
hand, the claim you both make, that you are at the same place, is not even 
obviously true, since no intertranslations (that do not assume the point at 
contention) have been provided, nor any explanation of either theory that 
coheres with even your own past practice, let alone with Lojban 
(I think this whole discussion is now clearly not for this list at all, but 
for loCCan or (since that assumes some connection with Lojban beyond phonetic 
form of morphemes) engelang.