[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:50:48AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > > >* 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. In
> lojban, masses from lei/loi have a specific definition which is not
> either of these.
That's a reasonable Fundamentalist position to take. One of the
jobs of the BF is to explicate such things as what a lojbanmass
is and isn't. It would be good if somebody who thinks they know
the answer would define it and answer questions about that
definition. If, that is, some gadri are to keep the meaning
'lojbanmass'.
> Lojban is not english. It's plain malrarbau to
> be unable to accept that lojbanmasses aren't precicely equivalent
> to one (of the many possible) analysis of English
We tend to argue from English because it is the local language.
But I think there is enough shared wisdom among us to know when
we are dealing with idiosyncrasies of English and when we are
dealing with controversial analyses of English, and to take
account of this in our argumentation about Lojban. Hence it can
be taken for granted, I think, that nobody is trying to impose
on Lojban things that are idiosyncratic to English.
--And.