[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| xorxes accuses me of misusing {lo broda} and {lo'e broda} as individual terms, something he has "never done." But, in fact, the whole {kairbroda} device to explain his {lo'e} depends upon just that move, along with at least one other shell game. We have that {broda lo'e brode} is to be explained as {kairbroda tu'o ka ce'u brode}. But this is an explanation only if {tu'o ka ce'u brode} is of the form {tu'o ka ce'u du a} for some individual term {a}, for it is only thus far that {kairbroda} is defined. The plausibility of its being of that form depends upon its purported equivalence with {tu'o ka ce'u du lo brode} or {tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e brode}. When neither of these give the result wanted -- one merely continues a circle, the other puts the quantifier in the wrong place and so reduced {lo'e} to something more clearly said without it -- we deny that these are individual terms. But then, to avoid the point that {kairbroda tu'o ka ce'u broda} is totally unexplained, the analogy with {busku} and {sisku} is brought in -- since {sisku} is perfectly with {tu'o ka ce'u brode} even if it is not reducible to an identity, then so should {kairbroda} be. But, of course, this line of chat ignores the fat that, compared to a normal predicate, {busku} is only defined when {sisku} takes an identity concept, so an ordinary predicate can only be treated analogously in that case. And the two aspects of this theory (incoherent in yet another sense, note) are then played off alternately, depending on the line of attack. Thus, from Def 1, for defining {busku} in terms of {sisku} , we get that busku lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda, taking {lo'e} as an individual term. But a few lines later, when the claim is {ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u lo'e broda}, {lo'e} is not an individual term, since that would mean that every set lo'i broda had at most one member (indeed, the one And's myopic observer sees, lo'e broda). But this claim is rejected, in favor first of one that replaces {lo'e ka ce'u du lo'e broda} with {tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da} and when that leads to the result that -- once again -- lo'e broda reduces to lo broda, this consequence is simply rejected without an alternate proposal -- except the obvious one that we can construct for {lo broda} a form that does not follow directly from that for {lo'e broda}. Messing with these things can get ones head in a terrible twist, as I know to my detriment, so I assume that xorxes has merely been captured by an intriguing idea and then allowed that idea to guide him -- incorrectly, it turns out this time -- through the maze. Time to go back to square 1 and either follows xod's suggestion (well, modified, since I think "typical" is too confining) to use an experimental cmavo for Llamban {lo'e} in Lojban (if there is any purpose thereby served, it being at the moment a non-concept) or get back to work trying to explain Lojban {lo'e} as it is or ought to be. |