From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Feb 26 18:18:04 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 27 Feb 2003 02:18:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 35278 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 02:18:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 02:18:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 02:18:03 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oDcZ-0000xI-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:18:03 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oDcR-0000wi-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:17:55 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:17:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oDcL-0000wW-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:17:49 -0800 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 h1R2OFbE001475 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:24:15 -0600 (CST) (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 h1R2OE2U001474 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:24:14 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:24:14 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly Message-ID: <20030227022414.GA1214@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4186 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 --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 12:09:13PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > cu'u la djordan. >=20 > >The changes people want to loi aren't backward compatible. They > >range from complete gadri overhauls, to redefining the meaning of > >"lo". >=20 > Since I spent two months trying to make my solution backwards=20 > compatible (most of it after you gave up on the discussion, I=20 > believe), I'll thank you not to speak for me. I was speaking about xod's solution and And's solution (at least the ones that I looked at). > Craig, your veto is overstated. *Changes* need to be strongly=20 > justified, this I agree with, and it is in the charter. (Contra=20 > Jordan, I think there is a problem with loi, though, because I have a=20 > different underlying philosophy of lojban, which we ay eventually=20 > need to thrash out --- namely, that while Grice is well and good for=20 > every day use, there must whensoever possible be explicit mechanisms=20 > of disambiguation in place if people need them.) [...] > loi can express four things, and there are no compelling=20 > disambiguations in the grammar (though you can approach it with=20 > paraphrase): collective (a bunch of sharks), substance (some shark=20 > [meat]), the Kind of shark ("Mr Shark"), the Any Shark (I'm=20 > drawing/seeking/needing a shark, any shark). Jordan contends that=20 > Grice should always tell you the difference between collective and=20 > substance; but if I am to have only Grice at my disposal, Lojban is=20 > much less clear than English (which allows you to have mass and count=20 > nouns); and no, I do not want to settle for that. The jboskeist core=20 > want to have different gadri for collective and substance; but that=20 > means loi is not backward compatible, which I cannot accept either.=20 We should be realistic about this though: Simply based on vocabulary alone, it is unlikely that Lojban will ever be as clear as English. Lojban is something to have fun with, and constant redesign and/or unrealistic goals will prevent it from ever getting off the ground. If you want a fully expressive language, pick a natlang, if you want a formal system, use one. Lojban is a deformed baby. We can only expect so much from it. That said, I actually think Nick's solution below may have some promise as a sane way to satisfy all sides (provided it does preserve (correct) existing usage, and also provides And and whoever else with what they want). And I do agree that Kind and Any are real problems. [...] > My solution (to be refined and what-not): >=20 > Collective: loi [so'a/su'eci'ino] finprcarka > Substance: loi [ci'ipa] finprcarka > Kind: [tu'o lo finprcarka] =3D> lo'ei carka (new LAhE, but=20 > paraphrasable as normal individual sumti with quantification turned=20 > off) > Any: either Propositionalism (what Lojban does now --- prenex=20 > of embedded clause), or Kind, depending on the selbri; [fi'u ro loi=20 > finprcarka] (in the right contexts). Does this preserve the "loi nanmu pu klama le lunra" usage? I can understand this in terms of lojbanmass, but not in terms of either substance or collective, and I think it is a very useful usage to have. Do you consider this to be Kind (which is what I thought it was)? But you use "lo'ei" for Kind, and my understand of xorxes' "lo'ei" doesn't fit with that. > The Collective/Substance distinction is fully optional (so both still=20 > get to be lojbanmasses), and stated on the inner quantifier; but the=20 > distinction can be made if people choose to. (Right now, that just=20 > plain isn't possible.) The Kind ("Mr Shark") is disambiguated from=20 > the lojbanmass by giving it a new LAhE, though it can also be stated=20 > (prolixly) in terms of existing sumti structures and turned off=20 > quantification. (Anything true of the Kind is true of the lojbanmass,=20 > but I'm not convinced the converse is true.) The Any problem (how to=20 > say Any shark as distinct from A shark in the completely general=20 > case) admits of several solutions, none perfect, although we're now=20 > putting more thought into it; when we go into non-existing entities,=20 > we add something like {tu'o lo se ka co'e} or something (to be=20 > thrashed out), as distinct from {lo co'e} (which commits to existence=20 > of the referent; And, this was the coup John and I pulled on you in=20 > NYC.) We need a new gadri for Any. tu'o doesn't work with lo (viewed it as a mo'ezi'o), because of the existing semantics of lo. > OK. You'll see a proper proposal in a few months. The BPFK will still=20 > start slow, and will start in a week or so. Back to your regularly=20 > scheduled flamewar. vi'o --=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 --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+XXbNDrrilS51AZ8RAsrkAKC7Un6i4cSh88liFcQITwHNITrcfQCgxLpQ Wqxbr/MZWDYc7ZVL7CzIyrs= =jDuw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--