From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Oct 05 13:23:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 5 Oct 2002 20:23:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8349 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2002 20:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Oct 2002 20:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Oct 2002 20:23:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17xvVX-0008MF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 13:26:39 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xvUx-0008LX-00; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 13:26:03 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 05 Oct 2002 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17xvUs-0008LH-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 13:25:58 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g95KU0GZ013875 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:30:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g95KU018013871 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:30:00 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:30:00 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Message-ID: <20021005203000.GA13575@allusion.net> References: <20021005155155.GA10703@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1935 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:15:07PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > Jordan: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:51:51PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: [...] > > > The (non)availability of semantically equivalent lujvo is hardly ever= a=20 > > > criterion for evaluating the utility of cmavo. > >=20 > > You have done little to support this viewpoint except state it. I > > don't agree with it.=20=20 >=20 > I claim that most cmavo can be paraphrased by brivla without change > in meaning. >=20 > If you don't accept that claim, we can discuss it further on Jboske. I challenge you to make a brivla which does ".i" and "zo'u", or "le" and "lo". *Some* cmavo, primarily the ones in UI which just freely modify things could be easily reorganized as a brivla, and in practice are in fact stated that way frequently. (You see gleki leza'i do broda as much as .ui do broda). But in general I think this claim is just patently false, unless you are also intending major grammar changes at the same time (in which case no one should be listening to you anyway). I'm not on jboske, and don't intend to be. [...] > > > > On the subject of fundamentalism, the CLL is the ultimate authority= on=20 > > > > Lojban usage, not. The ultimate authority is the BNF grammar + the= =20 > > > > gismu list + the cmavo list. The CLL simply exists to make this=20 > > > > understandable to carbon-based life-forms.=20=20 > >=20 > > The semantics in CLL should be kept as stable as everything else. > > Where CLL makes errors (see the errata wiki page), we should defer > > to cmavyjavgi'uste and the formal grammar to clarify. >=20 > The formal grammar does not have a semantic component. I know that. That was my entire reason for replying to robin's comment also. Perhaps you should reread it. > > > Technically, the BNF 'grammar' is more like a grammaticality-checker > > > than a true grammar. That is, it will tell you whether or not a > > > string is well-formed Lojban, but it won't tell you what it means. > >=20 > > This is of course what a grammar is... >=20 > I don't know how to respond to that. Believe what you like; you > don't inspire in me a strong desire to educate you. I'll leave it to=20 > you to inform the grammarians of the world about their delusions about=20 > their domain of scholarship. See Cowan's reply to the same message. This is just the standard english problem of confusion from overloaded terminology. In the context at hand (formal phrase structure grammars), that *is* what 'grammar' means. If you already knew that, I don't know what you were complaining about. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9n0vIDrrilS51AZ8RAoBpAKCynXaAXdDSx6aEFinbRBMssi5pgQCdGcC2 hV3cKUpcNX1ymGN4LnKQAfc= =VGGQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J--