Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:14:04 EST

In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:11:29 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
<<
> 2 is not really needed for either position. 1 is our position,
> but pc has always spoken out against it. He does not approve
> of {ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode}, and I am
> convinced we will never reach an agreement about this.
>>
Yes, Lojban is spoken logic, supposedly. Logic has two universals which it 
typically represents in surface structures very close to the two putative 
equivalents. Should we not follow it in this? Or can we now toss over all 
the other connections with Logic as well: make {a} XOR, and {anai} contrary 
to fact and so on paractically ad inf? It makes a perfectly sensible 
language, maybe even a more sensible one from some points of view than 
Lojban, but it ceases to be Lojban (or any Loglan, for that matter). So, 
where is the point of no return on this?

<<
I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness
of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u
/me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/
su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want
to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to
use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there
is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always
the possibility of being precise either way.
I am not sure I would use "salomonic" here. It seems to me to kill the baby. 
Now we have 12 quantifiers instead of four -- or two. While most sentences 
will make no practical difference, the semantics will contain a contiuning 
floating ambiguity (not good in a logical langauge). Admittedly, the new 
quantifiers are shorter than spelling out the odd ones in a given system 
(well, about exactly as long as the obversion cases) but we always have to do 
this to be clear, there is no usual reading.
Yes, though, it will rarely make a difference. Which makes me wonder what 
secret agenda folks have that makes them make such a fuss about the regular 
position.