[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:32:45AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> [...]
> > > Yeah. Look, lo means what we say it means, and so does lo'e, and in
> > > that of course Wittgenstein was right: meaning is use. But I'm going
> > > more and more structuralist, which means that to me, the meaning of
> > > {lo'e} is decided by the meaning of {lo}. When you say {lo merko}, you
> > > claim some objective knowledge of the membership of {American}.
> >
> > I don't know how strong a claim you mean to make here. {lo merko}
> > means "Ex, x is merko". Does that claim some objective knowledge
> > of the membership of {American}? No, in my opinion. One can quite
> > legimately deny that objective knowledge even exists. Lojban
> > shouldn't rule on epistemological issues, and the ruling is
> > unconnected to the difference between o-gadri and e-gadri.
> [...]
>
> But it does *claim* objective knowledge. Whether the speaker
> actually *has* it is what is legitamately deniable[1], but that
> they're *claiming* it doesn't degrade lojban's "philisophical
> neutrality". Making rediculously claims is how people talk and
> think. For example "If I had more free time I'd go fishing" is an
> arguably philisophically rediculous claim (xod was saying something
> to this effect the other day[2]), but it's how we think, so things
> like mu'ei are justified, and having the ability to make *claims*
> of that sort does not do any harm to the pyny.
sa'ecai ra selsmuni le si'o le za'i zifre cu cunmukti le zu'o mi fipkalte
> [1] pe'i the term "objective knowledge" can mean various degrees
> of objectivity; but in the strictest (and only the strictest) sense
> it's clearly impossible to possess.
>
> [2] Xod's thing was that there's only 1 world, so claims about
> "possible worlds" or what "could be" or what is "possible" etc are
> a bunch of crap. He was speaking specifically of mu'ei, which I
> don't think actually has the problems he described it since the
> notion of "world" is much more specifically defined. I tried to
> start a thread on this but it's unfortunately painfully apparent
> that le'e jboskepre cu to'e nelci lo'enu ri casnu bau la lojban.
za'a zo jboske cu cmene le pu'u ju'oske ju lojbo .i ku'i .ai mi ca'o bau
casnu
--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.