Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:04:52 -0000

Robin:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:52:44PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:48:36AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:08:38PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > > There is no problem with loi 
> > > 
> > > Since more than one competent lojbanist disagrees with you, you are
> > > prima facia wrong, even if all your points are correct 
> > 
> > Huh? This is a fallacy (argumentum ad populum). Statements have a
> > particular truth value regardless of what we believe about them 
> 
> Whether or not there is a problem with lojban is defined by the opinions
> of lojbanists, nothing more, nothing less. Enough lojbanists have
> expressed the opinion that there is a problem that their beliefs mean
> that there is a problem 

It's not so much that we understand official loi & think it broken.
Rather, the official definition is impenetrably muddy. (That said,
the general view is that the basic idea underlying loi is a real
and probably irremediable mess, but that is not the sort of defect 
that the BF is constituted to rectify.)

Jordan believes he has an understanding of current loi that is
unbroken. The BF would give him an opportunity to put forward his
understanding, in suitably well-documented form, as a BF proposal.

It must be remembered that The Refgram is not a technical specification
of matters semantic. It is a reference grammar -- an excellent one. It
describes the language at the level of precision and clarity one would
expect from a good reference grammar. But it doesn't aspire to or
achieve the level of detail, precision or complexity necessary to
*define* semantics.

--And.