[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
I do think and haverepeatedly pointed out how trying to make something useful of this definitiongets you into a variety of incoherences (or a variety of ways to express a single incoherence).
You have repeatedly pointed out _that_ ... You have not pointed out _how_, as far as I can follow.
Each time I do so, you say that you didn't really do what you overtly did. But you have not given an account of what you really did do that is not subject to the same objections.
Ok, let me start from scratch so that we don't have to worry
about what I did or didn't do. I recant everything I said
previously on this topic. I now give two definitions:
DEFINITION 1: I define {buska}:
\x\y\z buska(x,y,z) = \x\y\z sisku(x, \w du(y,w), z)
[I'm defining {buska} here. Later I will ask you to make
the analogy kairbroda:broda::sisku:buska. I will never
explicitly define {kairbroda}, but I am explicitly and
fully defining {buska}. Let's forget about kairbroda for
the time being.]
Before even starting to talk about {lo'e broda}, do you think
there is anything at all problematic about definition 1?
DEFINITION 2: I define {lo'e broda} such that:
buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u broda
That's the definition. Is the definition in itself problematic?
(It may turn out to be be useless, but is it somehow incoherent?)
Now, how is that definition useful? It is useful because it
permits us to contrast:
(A) buska lo broda = da poi broda zo'u sisku tu'o ka ce'u du da
(B) buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da
(A) follows directly from the definition of {buska}. It should
not be problematic as everything in it is normal Lojban, there
is no mention nor use of {lo'e} there, nor anything non-standard.
(B) is just definition 2 of {lo'e broda} written in a way easier
to compare with (A).
The RHS's of (A) and (B) clearly make a useful distinction,
and the LHS's are a convenient shorthand for making that
distinction, so my definitions, if coherent, are useful.
If definition 2 is somehow incoherent or leads to incoherence,
I would like to understand why.
I really would like your (or somebody's) explanation of {lo'e} in Lojban to
work. Yours deosn't yet and the defense of it is getting we worried about
your bona fides (are you really an AMORC posing as an AFAM?)
I'm guessing I should be insulted by that, but I don't know what the acronyms stand for. I am not insisting with my definitions just to piss you off. I am confident that they make good sense. If they don't, I'd like to know where they fail. If you are equally convinced that I am wrong, and you care to convince me, then I'm listening. If you suspect I am ignoring some valid argument of yours out of bad faith, well, what can I do. I would not keep discussing with you if I thought you were not arguing in good faith. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.� Try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp