[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Actually, I leave happyish. I accept a maximalist ontology for gadri as something we can all grudgingly live with, and will push for it. (I think And's insistence on spelling that ontology with every single gadri is the kind of bloody-mindedness we expect of And, but (modulo lau'a, which I still don't see the point of), at least it is clear in its denotation, if nothing else. I understand {kau} now as something bound to a predication, denoting true statements. (So in main statements, it is trivially true, and kaunai would indeed be paradoxical.) I see what the issue with the intensional article is, and that we have one radical, propositionalist solution (mi nitce leka ce'u mikce, mi djica leka ce'u mikce), and one accomodationist solution (Jorge's mi nitcu "lo'e" mikce) which can do Montague's mid-sentence prenexes in its semantics, if not its actual form !!{mi nitcu [to su'o da poi mikce zo'u toi] da}
And I'm seeing others catch up, and we'll have to wait and say if they end up in the same place or somewhere different. Which is damned arrogant of me to say, but also damned frustrating. I mean, there is a transparent/opaque distinction, and that's accepted, so it annoys me when xod asks what the difference is. But the explanations are buried in the sludge of the list; we barely have the energy to dig out the post where the explanation was posted. (At least, I think we posted an explanation here. Didn't we?) Similarly I think right now that John surely can't be right in claiming that transparent readings aren't instantiated knowledge ("for some X, I know that X is a spy" is surely "I know that Fred's a spy" and distinct from "I know that, for some X, X is a spy"). (If I'm wrong and John's right, and there is a transparent/opaque distinction in knowledge that differs from instantiation, well, I'm heading for the Western Islands. I'll find out about it later.) But the solution --- permanent documentation, and refs to online documentation --- eludes us in this forum format.
I reject And's solution, because the solution is not to have a mailing list at all. Mailing lists cannot be fixed, they will always be linear streams. And that's why we'd insisted on not starting up jboske list, but waiting for the Elephant. It's whoever started posting here that's responsible for my lost sleep.
The proper solution is the same as I've said in my description of the BPFK: a discussion board, like Web Crossing. Where all the content is in the one place, and is threaded. Preferably with some hierarchical structure of topics, and some way to flag posts as "this is gidva". (And --- mandatorily --- some way of extracting the text of discussion into archive readily.) That's jumping the gun on the Elephant, but it will prove essential in the months ahead. I think this becomes BPFK infrastructure (sponsored, if not always sanctioned), and will call for someone to set it up. (Robin may balk at the idea of supporting jboske in any way, so we may have to see who else has web space, or I may need Board back up. We'll see.)
-- How can the king and nobles makes ends meet, Dr Nick Nicholas, if not by eating you and all the others? French & Italian, (Cheetah to Ox; _Tale of the Quadrupeds_, Univ. of Melbourne Byzantium, 14thC) nickn@hidden.email http://www.opoudjis.net