[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:50:48AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > Intemperate response.
>
> [ Can you put attributions on your messages? It makes it easier
> to tell who you're replying to ]
>
> [...]
> > > >* Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri},
> > > >because if {remei} is a mass
> > > as it is defined in the word lists (not just CLL)
> >
> > And since both the word lists and the CLL have no idea that there is a
> > distinction between substance and collective, and think they're both
> > the same, you'll pardon me if on this, I suspend fundamentalism.
> [...]
> > Usage? USAGE?! That's rich, when you never defined the difference
> > between collective and substance in the first place.
>
> Ok, let's all keep in mind that this "substance" and "collective"
> crud has *nothing* to do with lojbanmasses. You guys pulled this
> from analysis of mass expressions in english and such things.
I don't think that the difference between substance and collective is in
any sense an SW figment of English. In fact, I suspect that English
conflates them to some extent. The fact that this discussion is not the
tinkering attempts of a single, bored individual, but the conflicting,
contradictory ideas of several relatively advanced Lojbanists, is the
clearest sign that the language is objectively confused on this issue, and
to discuss this in Lojban would result in an Alice in Wonderland, "Who's
on first What's on second" travesty. To perform metadiscussion in Lojban
requires fluency nobody's yet achieved, but it also requires the language
reach a level of development which Lojban has yet to exhibit. I used to
believe that it could, but I've been convinced otherwise now. Is that
because of insufficient usage? Fine -- we are the users, who, in order to
use, are discussing how we are going to continue using. There is an
important difference between interesting, non-English metaphysical
assumptions, buried into Lojban structure, intentionally, as the result of
insights, and muddled mistakes and contradictions, lacking justification,
un-noticed by the founders, and which are the results of English thought.
This discussion therefore is Applied and not Theoretical, and the results
of it will in all likelihood trickle down to the Lojban "mainstream", even
without the transmission belt of the BF. I can sympathize with the
generational sense of disdain, but in this case, I think it is misapplied.
--
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();