[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 05:47:16PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> The Lojban way is that, though you can leave anything you want to
> pragmatics, you must always be able to disambiguate with an explicit
> paraphrase. This ability is the major selling point of Lojban for a
> lot of Lojbanists, possibly the majority. (Sapir-Whorf stuff be
> damned.)
I disagree. Show me what the "fix-phrase" for pragmatics issues
is on that Fx therefore Fx v Fy thing.
> Right now, you have no way using Lojbanmasses of disambiguating
> between distributed and collective readings, for the simple reason
> that, though lo is +distributed, loi is not -distributed, but
> unmarked as to distributivity.
>
> So the lack of a -distributed gadri gets in the way of Lojban design
> goals. In fact, that there are *no* Lojban means of disambuguating a
> reading as being collective. {gunma}? Lojbanmass, not collective.
> {mei}? Ditto. {jo'u}? If Jordan has his way, ditto. Yeah, pragmatics
> tells you that {lei nanmu} is collective not distributive. But there
> is *no* disambiguation in Lojban whatever right now, using explicit
> words rather than pragmatics. None. Including {nanmu remei}, which is
> still a lojbanmass. And {jo'u} isn't enough -- not if you're talking
> about a million man march, as distinct from a million people going to
> DC at some stage in the year (lo), or the NAACP leadership, on behalf
> of its million man membership, going to DC (piano carrier
> supervisors).
Ok, so if this is what you really want, make a brivla please
("malgunma" or whatever). I don't see how any of this could possibly
justify the complete gadri overhauls that AndR is spewing.
You still haven't convinced me that "piro" doesn't do what you want
(probably because what is wanted still hasn't been explained fully).
> *This* is what is broken.
I still don't see anything broken. And furthermore I don't think
I'll be able to understand your viewpoint unless you declare that
the (x)(Fx -> (y)(Fx v Fy)) stuff is "broken" also.
> As to Jordan's syllogism, this depends on where time and place are introduced:
First of all, time and place wasn't said in the original bridi; I
don't think it is fair to just add them.
> su'o da poi temci ku'o
> su'o de poi diklo zo'u:
> naku la djan. jo'u la djeimez. bevri ca da vi de
> su'o da poi temci ku'o
> su'o de poi diklo zo'u:
> naku piro lu'o la djan. ce la djeimez. bevri ca da vi de
> su'o da poi temci ku'o
> su'o de poi diklo zo'u:
> pisu'o lu'o la djan. ce la djeimez. naku bevri ca da vi de
> which is false.
You already have the naku boundary past the time/place quantifiers,
so shouldn't they be "ro"?
> su'o da poi temci ku'o
> su'o de poi diklo zo'u:
> ca da vi de naku la djan. jo'u la djeimez. bevri
> su'o da poi temci ku'o
> su'o de poi diklo zo'u:
> ca da vi de naku piro lu'o la djan. ce la djeimez. bevri
> su'o da poi temci ku'o
> su'o de poi diklo zo'u:
> ca da vi de pisu'o lu'o la djan. ce la djeimez. naku bevri
> which is true.
Same problem as above.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binPOIuokll7u.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped