[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [jboske] Re: gadri paradigm: 2 excellent proposals



Lojbab:
> At 05:19 PM 12/22/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > * Is there any scope to fiddle with default interpretations
> > > > of bare gadri?
> > >
> > > By the fundamentalist imperative, not much
> >
> >I agree. But we know that CLL is partly broken,
> 
> We don't "know" this.  CLL does not claim to define a semantic theory for 
> Lojban, and it is that expectation that is broken 

We know that CLL partly defines an incoherent semantics for Lojban.
If we were able to take the view that nothing that CLL says about
semantics is official, then our job now would be much easier.
 
> >But yes, there is a departure from CLL, in a change to the
> >rule for interpretation of bare lo/le/la when there is no outer
> >or inner PA. But fundamentalism would likewise insist on loi/lei/lai
> >as being fuzzy conflations of Substance and Collective; it is not
> >acceptable for someone to be Fundamentalist on some things and not
> >on others, without making their Fundamentalism suspect 
> 
> The ground rules of the byfy require that "fundamentalists" accept that 
> there be some changes to CLL, whether they (we) want it or not.  I am 
> trying to destroy factionalism, so quit trying to force people into 
> factional  modes 

I am not trying to force people into factional modes. I am trying
to articulate a number of ideologies that have a degree of integrity
and coherence such that one can predict their stance on any given 
question. If someone argues their own views from such a consistent
ideological position then their ideological justification for their
views is more estimable than if they vary their ideological stance
from issue to issue.

You may object to the notion of factions or of ideologies, but when
I speak of them it is generally in an attempt to discover some
reasonable basis for the views of participants in the debates. IMO
this is better than the way you (and not only you) interject into
discussion contemptuous or antagonistic remarks about jboske.
Thus I prefer to recognize the existence of fundamentally different
ideologies towards lojban that are each deserving of respect, even
though they are incompatible, why you prefer to deny these fundamental
ideological differences and work towards consensus through some sort
of discourse of mutual disrespect.

> The ground rules of the byfy are that changes are not to be made lightly, 
> and not merely because someone has a better idea.  

I don't accept these 'ground rules'. I am content to be outvoted by
people who do, but if accepting them is a precondition of involvement, 
then we need to go back, formulate an explicit list of Articles, and 
require an Act of Confirmation from BF members.

> "Broken" in reference to CLL means that it is self-contradictory (or 
> contradicts the word lists).  Contradicting some school of logic is NOT 
> "broken", and being semantically vague is not "broken", just "vague" 

It's true that the semantics is rarely clear, formal and explicit
enough for us to detect brokenness. So perhaps instead of "broken"
we should say "nugatory". The problem is not that it contradicts some
school of logic or is vague but that it is difficult to find a way
to build a coherent, formalized and explicit semantics out of it.
And thus do we face the choice between baroque kludges that strive
to be CLL compatible, and alternatives that can be more elegant by
virtue of not striving to be CLL compatible.

Another related problem is that we don't have any arch-fundamentalists
(participating in the current discussions) that are both able and 
willing to do what is required for the BF -- that is, construct a 
semantic analysis that is fully consistent with CLL, and explain and
answer questions about the analysis. The people who are prepared to
put the work in all have formalist proclivities that are not wholly
subjugated to fundamentalism.

--And.