Subject: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:10:22 -0500

At 11:55 PM 03/22/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >All this seems to be philosophy though, more than language.
>
>To me saying that every se djuno has to be a jetnu is just like
>saying that every mensi has to be a fetsi, I can hardly see any
>philosophy there, just a definition of what the words mean.
>
> >To be metaphysically neutral, we have to allow in the language such that A
> >does not entail B where A and B use different selbri.
>
>So we have to allow for non-female sisters too? Doesn't mensi
>always require some form of fetsi?

Probably, but it might be arguable.

If I had a brother who underwent a sex-change operation, would he be my 
sister or my brother? Genetically he is still male, but genitally he is 
female.

Now you can say this is "some form of fetsi" But the djuno case in theory 
could be some kind of jetnu, since you CAN add some kind of observer place 
to jetnu.

But in any case I am wary about asserting absolute definitions, especially 
by prescription.

> >Indeed that may be a
> >problem in a lojban-only dictionary that is not merely descriptive, that
> >any defining of a brivla in terms of other brivla constitute metaphysical
> >assumptions that may not be necessary.
>
>What is special about Lojban in that respect? Isn't every language
>like that?

We claim to be minimizing such assumptions.

> >One need not accept such
> >alternate philosophies, but rejecting a gismu as meaningful or useful (and
> >perhaps also rejecting a cmavo as *you* often do) seems like such a
> >metaphysical rejection.
>
>Maybe, though I have no idea really what would constitute a metaphysical
>rejection. I reject some cmavo mainly on practical grounds. For
>example, some people like to use za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e instead of
>the simple nu that covers them all. But in order for me to understand
>what they are saying I have to first recognize and then mentally
>translate that word into nu, and I usually have no idea what additional
>information the word is adding. I have not yet found an example
>where I can say that it justifies the whole hassle of having to learn
>four more words.

%^)

But that you don't see the value that justifies it doesn't mean that there 
won't ever be someone who does. Similarly, we can't say that there will 
never be someone who can think of a use for mensi that does not involve 
fetsi (imagine when we meet an alien species which might be 
asexual. Someone's father legally adopts a child of this species into the 
family. Would it be wrong to call that new family member "mensi"?

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org