Subject: Re: Nick will be with you shortly

From: Nick Nicholas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:09:13 +1100

cu'u la djordan.

>The changes people want to loi aren't backward compatible. They
>range from complete gadri overhauls, to redefining the meaning of
>"lo".

Since I spent two months trying to make my solution backwards 
compatible (most of it after you gave up on the discussion, I 
believe), I'll thank you not to speak for me.

Craig, your veto is overstated. *Changes* need to be strongly 
justified, this I agree with, and it is in the charter. (Contra 
Jordan, I think there is a problem with loi, though, because I have a 
different underlying philosophy of lojban, which we ay eventually 
need to thrash out --- namely, that while Grice is well and good for 
every day use, there must whensoever possible be explicit mechanisms 
of disambiguation in place if people need them.)

But additions and elaborations of the definitions which do not annul 
previous definitions have a lower threshold of acceptability. This is 
why we are allowed to expand on the existing definitions, not merely 
disambiguate them. The elaborations still need to have overall 
consensus; but since they are intended to complete, not revise, I 
think default vetoing of them all is unhelpful. Yes, the case should 
still be made for them, but I don't believe it need be as 
overwhelming as for backward-compatibility breaking outright changes; 
completing the definition is why the BPFK was constituted, after all.

I have no earthly desire to get into loi on this forum; but since 
we've got enough people saying what they think, I'll state in a 
couple of paragraphs the problem and the solution as I see it.

loi can express four things, and there are no compelling 
disambiguations in the grammar (though you can approach it with 
paraphrase): collective (a bunch of sharks), substance (some shark 
[meat]), the Kind of shark ("Mr Shark"), the Any Shark (I'm 
drawing/seeking/needing a shark, any shark). Jordan contends that 
Grice should always tell you the difference between collective and 
substance; but if I am to have only Grice at my disposal, Lojban is 
much less clear than English (which allows you to have mass and count 
nouns); and no, I do not want to settle for that. The jboskeist core 
want to have different gadri for collective and substance; but that 
means loi is not backward compatible, which I cannot accept either. 
My solution (to be refined and what-not):

Collective: loi [so'a/su'eci'ino] finprcarka
Substance: loi [ci'ipa] finprcarka
Kind: [tu'o lo finprcarka] => lo'ei carka (new LAhE, but 
paraphrasable as normal individual sumti with quantification turned 
off)
Any: either Propositionalism (what Lojban does now --- prenex 
of embedded clause), or Kind, depending on the selbri; [fi'u ro loi 
finprcarka] (in the right contexts).

The Collective/Substance distinction is fully optional (so both still 
get to be lojbanmasses), and stated on the inner quantifier; but the 
distinction can be made if people choose to. (Right now, that just 
plain isn't possible.) The Kind ("Mr Shark") is disambiguated from 
the lojbanmass by giving it a new LAhE, though it can also be stated 
(prolixly) in terms of existing sumti structures and turned off 
quantification. (Anything true of the Kind is true of the lojbanmass, 
but I'm not convinced the converse is true.) The Any problem (how to 
say Any shark as distinct from A shark in the completely general 
case) admits of several solutions, none perfect, although we're now 
putting more thought into it; when we go into non-existing entities, 
we add something like {tu'o lo se ka co'e} or something (to be 
thrashed out), as distinct from {lo co'e} (which commits to existence 
of the referent; And, this was the coup John and I pulled on you in 
NYC.)

OK. You'll see a proper proposal in a few months. The BPFK will still 
start slow, and will start in a week or so. Back to your regularly 
scheduled flamewar.

-- 
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies [email-masked] *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****