Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:27:51 +0100

>>> Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]> 08/21/01 11:46pm >>>
#... 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.

I don't have my Woldy handy, but my understanding is that LE is
+specific +/-definite -veridical. +definite and -definite are indicated
by le bi'unai and le bi'u respectiviely.

#This now looks like a misconstrual on my part, again because of 
#antiquated understanding of the language (previous teaching material, 
#to my recollection, emphasised non-veridicality to the exclusion of
#definiteness.) 

This is definitely true. This shift came about as a result of a huge
debate that raged in the mid 90s.

(Although the LE/LO distinction antedates my involvement with
Lojban, I am convinced that the *original* distinction must have been
primarily one of specificity (or conceivably definiteness) and not one
of veridicality, the veridicality being, I believe, an incidental property
that through incomplete understanding was elevated to a defining
property.)

#{ce'u} is ultimately alien to all 'Tweeners but xorxes, who was the only 
#'Tweener still around in 1997.)

I have been around uninterruptedly since 91, except for maybe a total of 
six months over the years when I never found time to read all my mail.
I joined after you and Mark but before Xorxes. I can't remember whether
it was before or after Ivan.

#> Remember that some of us haven't yet gotten that far. To the extent that
#> you wish the new book to set and add to standards for the language, you
#> will have to be prepared for it to take a while. Cowan's refgrammar
#> existed as draft chapters for 3 years before it was settled enough to be
#> published, and we STILL made a lot of last minute corrections and people
#> are still finding errata. Your ce'u chapters haven't existed more than a
#> couple of months.
#
#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?

I have to say Nick, that it seems to me to be no bad thing if they're published
in nonfinal form asap online, but in paper form only after a fair while. That gives
people time to read and digest it and for minor changes to be made.

I mightn't have held that view originally, but it has turned out that the Lessons
do contain controversial stuff.

#(b) "my kindness" is plausibly taken as being a property of me.

= {le ka ce'u xendo kei be mi}, under a usage proposed but not endorsed
by me.

#If I leave it to usage before now, I document your understanding of {ka},
#because that's how {ka} was used until people woke up to {ce'u}.
#
#If I leave it to usage from this point on, I document the majority
#understanding of {ka}, because people are now awake to {ce'u}.
#
#If I document the standard, the standard is inconsistent (but leans
#towards the latter.)
#
#If I document both approaches, I am airing dirty laundry in public. You're
#cool with that. I'm not. I have yielded before, but because the refgramm
#seriously leans towards regarding {ka} as an intension in all cases (and
#the refgramm author now says it always should, and didn't only because of
#confusion), I'm somewhat reluctant to. Once more, I solicit others'
#opinions.

My opinion, then, is that you should document ka according to the
Cowan doctrine, but that the issue of the interpretation of empty places
should be silently ignored by using examples with no empty places.

#I will go one further. I will (at some point this year) go through all
#Lojban I have posted as 'texts', eliminate instances of {ka} with
#what I now understand to be filled {ce'u}, post on my website the new
#versions, and renounce my former usage. Because I will *not* have my
#former usage used as a datapoint in this. 

Wow. That certainly counts as giving a shit and half!

--And.