[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> > > And, to confirm, in your opinion, these Lojban sentences are actually
> > > identical in meaning?
> > >
> > > ca ro djedi lo nanmu cu cinba la meris
> > > lo nanmu ca ro djedi cu cinba la meris
> >
> > Certainly they aren't equivalent. I realize you're just asking for
> > clarification, but we can't go round discarding long- and firmly-
> > established principles just because the somewhat erratic processes
> > of documenting our discussions never led to them being properly
> > documented
>
> If you realize that I'm only asking for clarification, then why launch
> into considering anything about discarding principles?
I can't remember why. I'm sure I wasn't trying to have a go at you.
I suppose I was a bit antsy about the idea that someone might want
to assert that those two sentences are equivalent.
> I interpreted John's hesitation to agree with Jorge's statements as an
> indication that he also thought those two sentences were equivalent. Now I
> see that, on jboske, nobody but me thought they were
>
> This whole issue has seriously dampened my enthusiasm for Lojban! I am now
> forced to revise my internal understanding of the Bridi. The CLL is
> totally not clear on these issues which are actually crucial and
> fundamental to Lojban.
I sympathize. Everything I know about Lojban (as opposed to language and
logic in general) I've picked up from the last 11 and a bit years of
the list. Its testimony to the intelligence of whoever learns Lojban that
they manage to learn it on the basis of the scanty resources available
(and I must say, that's one of the reasons I enjoy being here -- the
quality of the company).
I hope that one thing that might emerge from your unhappiness is a
statement of the kind of thing that needs to be documented for the
benefit of learners who are new not only to Lojban but also to logic,
especially since logic textbooks are often intimidating, and most
people don't realize that basic logic (the sort you need for Lojban)
is just a rigorized and formalized version of ordinary language.
Perhaps you might decide to become a spokesman for these learners
and superintend the compilation of the necessary documentation?
> You logickers are simply able to translate your
> knowledge over, and this all seems natural to you, but I've never learned
> formal logic. Had it been made clear that it was a prerequisite, I would
> have.
I believe in your sincerity, but I find what you say incredible! I
can't conceive how one can fail to immediately form the impression,
on first acquaintance with Lojban, that a knowledge of basic knowledge
is necessary, if not as a prerequisite then as a concomitant.
> I thought the relevancy of variable order inside prenexes was
> restricted to sentences with prenexes and statements including da. Now,
> four years on, I learn that there are secret das inside every lo
That's a failure of documentation that should be remedied. (In the
Jboske wiki section for documenting established but underdocumented
stuff.)
> and le,
Perhaps {ro da voi} underlies {le}, but this is neither crucial nor
established.
> such that sumti order totally affects the claim, and that tense sumtcita
> location matters. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall seeing any of
> this in the chapter on LE, on FA or SE, or on tense sumtcita. If it's
> there and I missed it, then it's my bad. But either way it's four years of
> intuition down the drain
I'm sure that after four years I had to unlearn plenty of erroneous
intuition too. I still regularly learn new stuff from xorxes (who
in turn is continually discovering new stuff), just as if I were
studying a foreign language, I would continually be learning new
stuff from its native speakers.
--And.