Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:28:13 -0400

Nick NICHOLAS wrote:

> Are you now saying that the "le ninmu" = "lo nanmu" (transvestite) example
> is inapplicable? Or are you saying that given enough context, a
> transvestite conventionally described as "le ninmu" can also be seen as
> "lo ninmu"?

The latter, I think. A TV may not be a prototypical woman, but s/he
may be just within the fuzzy ninmu orbital. If we are talking about
socially assigned responses to gender, "lo ninmu" may be just the
thing.

> ... On the other hand, I now see in the refgramm that "le" is defined as
> +definite -veridical, and not as I remembered it, +/-definite -veridical.

"le" is +specific -veridical. Definiteness is more or less managed
by "bi'u". Where does the refgram say that "le" is +definite?

> So that I understand this, there is a real possibility that it will take
> years rather than months for the content of the lessons to be reviewed and
> finalised. Yes?

Alas, it is not inconceivable. In a sense, there is no point in
officially freezing them until we can afford to print-publish
them.

> This means in the general case that {ka} is not an intension --- a
> property *of* something, ellipsed or not ---

I don't follow this.

> The Refgramm says "mi djuno lenu la frank. cu bebna" is
> 'not quite right',

On your recommendation, as it happens. (This is not a criticism.)

> Philosophical disagreement. John, I hate to put you on the spot, but you
> have yourself acceeded to using the word 'errata'. Should any emendation
> to the refgramm treatment of {ka} be left to usage and informal, or
> written up and formalised? I think I know what the answer is, though...

I have written it up on the wiki, and I believe that I was in error.
Whether the *book* is in error is a matter of definitions; I would
certainly say that it was. Chapter 1 notes the possibility of
"corrections of outright errors", though rather less subtle
errors were certainly what was expected.

> If I document the standard, the standard is inconsistent (but leans
> towards the latter.)

IMAO when the Book contradicts itself, the Book is in error,
period.

-- 
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel