[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 02:27 PM 12/22/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> >I commend you guys for your premisses, and blast you for your confusion
> > > So here is what xorxes and I agree on:
> > >
> > > set: lu'iro lu'ile lu'ila (=lo'i/le'i/la'i)
> > > quantified: PA(ro) PAle PAla
> > > substance: lu'oiro lu'oile lu'oila
> > > collective: lu'oro lu'ole lu'ola (=(piro)loi/lei/lai)
> > > 'unique': lu'airo lu'aile lu'aila
> >
> >The ontology is certainly a sound basis for anything to be said on gadri
>
> ...
>
> > > That would then give the following table of shortest forms:
> > >
> > > set: lo'i le'i la'i
> > > quantified: PA PAle PAla
> > > substance: lo le la
> > > collective: loi lei lai
> > > 'unique': lu'airo (~lo'e) lu'airole (~ le'e) lu'aila
> >
> >Doing the following:
> >
> >* Regarding 'substance' as the basic meaning of {loi}
>
> That seems to contradict the above
Nick was talking about his scheme which followed.
> I generally approve of your "fundamentalist" pose - whether I agree with
> all the conclusions, it sure cuts away a lot of the ornate embellishments
> that the semanticists seem to want. (I should interject at this point that
> one criticism that Lojban has seen from old Loglanists as well as some
> newcomers who have turned away, is that we have added lots of baroque
> ornateness to what was otherwise a relatively simple language. We should
> bear this criticism in mind before ascending to new heights of baroqueness
What I would call ornateness is to be found in COI and UI and is rather
appealing to me -- they're like optional extras, what are sometimes
called 'features' ("the new software/car has lots of new features").
The semanticists aren't agitating for new features. They are agitating
for PRECISION in the prescription, espically when it comes to logical
matters. The newness in the above paradigm comes from disambiguations
of Lojbanmass and generics, plus perhaps also a SW argument pro Unique.
The baroqueness enteres the picture in trying to reconcile Formalism
and Fundamentalism. If you are trying to remain faithful to a mess
of imprecision, while at the same time trying to produce something
precise, then you end up with something pretty monstrous. It may be
that the end product will be something that everybody hates
equally, but it is unfair to prejudge the issue, partly because
we don't know what the BF will come out with, and partly because
whatever it comes out with will need to be tested with usage before
it can be properly evaluated.
I have seen people complain about the 'complexity' of Lojban, e.g.
Ceqliists, but either they don't really want a logical language,
because they want the superficialities of logic without the
foundations, or they want something that does more than Lojban
can offer, such as concision, or what they want is the finished
product, all trimmed and polished and explained in terms comprehensible
to beginners.
--And.