Subject: Attempting to bring the ro debate to a resolution

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:41:55 -0000

The position supported by everybody except pc (= me, xorxes, Jordan,
Adam, Nick + probably xod & Robin -- everybody who's participated,
& probably the remainder of Lojbanists too) is this:

A. ro broda cu brode = ro da poi broda cu brode
B. ro da poi broda cu broda = ro da ga na broda gi brode
C. ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode

The position supported by pc is that C is definitely invalid, while
either one of A and B may be declared valid, with the other one
declared invalid (though his preference is for A to be valid and
B to be invalid).

The pros and cons of the two positions have already been debated,
so I won't try to summarize them.

Each position is partially but not fully consistent with CLL (which 
itself is not internally consistent). Contrary to what pc seems
often to be saying, each position is equally compatible with 
logic, for the point at issue concerns which logical formula 
the linguistic structures correspond to. 

The debate about whether the universal quantifier and/or ro is 
importing is pretty much a red-herring, because it boils down to
a question of the effect of an empty universe on truth values.
It is a matter that your average Lojbanist interested only in
precise and unambiguous communication can safely ignore.

Neither position really has anything to do with logic. It has to
do with the mapping between linguistic and logical structures.
The choice really boils down to (a) which one makes the grammar
simplest, (b) which one better matches established usage and
established idiolects, (c) which one better matches the way we
each would like things to be.

How, then, do we choose between the two positions?

CLL gives equal support to each, so is not decisive here.
Each position is equally compatible with general lojbanological
principles. 
There is no firmly established common lojbanic lore on the 
matter. The evidence for this is that if the A=B=C position had
been firmly established, then we wouldn't be having the debate
-- pc would go on complaining but nobody would heed it, except
perhaps to point out that he was wrong --, while if pc's position 
had been firmly established, then he would not be the only one
espousing it -- at the least, several other jboskepre ought to 
be backing him up.

All we can do is note that pc takes the one position and everybody
else the other. There is, then, a pc-less consensus in favour of
A=B=C. IMO, when an issue has been as thoroughly debated as this,
and a pcless consensus emerges, it counts as a pukka consensus,
and it is eligible to made Official if/when the time comes to 
document it in official publications.

I therefore propose to document A=B=C on the wiki as a pcless
consensus. If that turns out to be premature, it can be revised.

--And.