[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:28:34AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> 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
.i le ki'a za'i zifri .i le ki'a zu'o mi fipkalte
.i pe'i satcymau fa lu le'eza'i mi zifri cu cunmukti lozu'o mi
fipkalte li'u .iku'i lu mi romu'ei gi zifri gi fipkalte li'u
xamgymau fi leka satci kei vau pe'i
.i zo cunmukti brivla ma ma
> > [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
.ie .iji'a pe'i lesi'o djuno fi la lojban. gi'enai se bangu ri cu
xlali
mu'o
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binJNlQYUrQdO.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped