From pycyn@aol.com Sun Dec 10 18:36:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 11 Dec 2000 02:36:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 65751 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2000 02:36:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Dec 2000 02:36:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Dec 2000 03:38:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.bd.9b60f49 (664) for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:36:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:36:51 EST Subject: Re: bringing it about To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bd.9b60f49.276597c3_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_bd.9b60f49.276597c3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en xorxes=E2=80=99 usage is just that; it is not official Lojbangrammar nor se= mantics.=C2=A0=20 In the latter,as worked out over the years on this and predecessor lists,=20 {lo=E2=80=99e} is indeedfor the average whatsit, and thus not what is typic= ally being=20 hunted =E2=80=93 anywhatsit will do, even a very untypical one, and {lo=E2= =80=99e broda} is=20 by rule not tobe treated as an individual but as a fictive stand in for a=20 more complex(hopelessly so, so far as expanding it is concerned) locution. = By=20 the samehistory, {tu=E2=80=99a x} is short for {le nu x co=E2=80=99e} or so= mething like it,=20 showingthat the x is not on the surface of the sentence but embedded a laye= r=20 down, notin the world of direct reference but an indirect one =E2=80=93 whi= ch may,=20 depending onthe brivla to which it is subordinated, not have any veridical= =20 connection tothe world of direct reference.=C2=A0 We can oftenignore this f= act,=20 resulting only in anomalies of sumti restrictions (or takingthem as implici= t)=20 but whenever the possibility of logical error arises, we haveto fall back (= in=20 a logical language) on explicitness. =20 Note, by the way, that we do not have a special grammarcategory for the=20 concept of average, but rather only a special member of thecategory gadri= =C2=A0=20 for a particular way oftalking of certain statistical information.=C2=A0Tha= t way=20 is (like the x in {tu=E2=80=99a x} ) not open to quantification nor toclaim= s that it=20 exists as an individual, so xorxes=E2=80=99 usage is at leastanalogical, th= ough=20 inaccurate.=C2=A0 Ofcourse, none of this applies to {sisku}, which got defi= ned in=20 this messy way inan earlier attempt to avoid the same problem that {tu=E2= =80=99a}=20 finally solve moregenerally, and probably should be moved back to something= =20 more natural, sinceit is hard to say what one wants now.=C2=A0The temptatio= n is=20 always to move to some other brivla in these cases. =20 =C2=A0Hope we are not going to get bogged down in this one again. --part1_bd.9b60f49.276597c3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en xorxes=E2=80=99 usage is just that; it is not official Lojbangrammar nor = semantics.=C2=A0
In the latter,as worked out over the years on this and= predecessor lists,
{lo=E2=80=99e} is indeedfor the average whatsit, an= d thus not what is typically being
hunted =E2=80=93 anywhatsit will do,= even a very untypical one, and {lo=E2=80=99e broda} is
by rule not tob= e treated as an individual but as a fictive stand in for a
more complex= (hopelessly so, so far as expanding it is concerned) locution. By
the s= amehistory, {tu=E2=80=99a x} is short for {le nu x co=E2=80=99e} or somethi= ng like it,
showingthat the x is not on the surface of the sentence but= embedded a layer
down, notin the world of direct reference but an indi= rect one =E2=80=93 which may,
depending onthe brivla to which it is sub= ordinated, not have any veridical
connection tothe world of direct refe= rence.=C2=A0 We can oftenignore this fact,
resulting only in anomalies = of sumti restrictions (or takingthem as implicit)
but whenever the poss= ibility of logical error arises, we haveto fall back (in
a logical language) on explicitness.
=20
Note, by the way, that we do not have a special grammarcategory for the=
concept of average, but rather only a special member of thecategory ga= dri=C2=A0
for a particular way oftalking of certain statistical informa= tion.=C2=A0That way
is (like the x in {tu=E2=80=99a x} ) not open to qu= antification nor toclaims that it
exists as an individual, so xorxes=E2= =80=99 usage is at leastanalogical, though
inaccurate.=C2=A0 Ofcourse, = none of this applies to {sisku}, which got defined in
this messy way in= an earlier attempt to avoid the same problem that {tu=E2=80=99a}
finall= y solve moregenerally, and probably should be moved back to something
m= ore natural, sinceit is hard to say what one wants now.=C2=A0The temptation= is
always to move to some other brivla in these cases.
=20
=C2=A0Hope we are not going to get bogged down in this one again= .
--part1_bd.9b60f49.276597c3_boundary--