[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> I still don't know what this "substance" and
> "collective" crap is. I haven't seen a definition even half as
> clear as the definition of lojbanmasses in the book, which I suggest
> you re-read
Everybody else sees things the opposite way round. And we've been
making well-intentioned efforts to explain Substance and Collective.
If you were to show a genuine desire to understand them, after
having made a genuine effort to, then perhaps Nick and I could
point you to various linguistics textbooks where these two fairly
standard notions ('mass' and 'collective' would be the usual
terms) are explained.
This isn't a flame. I don't see you as under any obligation to
make an effort to read and understand jboske messages. But fruitful
discussion does require you to, and not just dismuss stuff as crap.
So hey, you feel free to dismiss basic notions from semantics as crap,
and I'll feel free to ignore what you say, and let neither of us
complain about the other.
> > Setting aside whether lojbanmass is a useful notion and whether
> > it is a Good Thing for it to play such a central role (as the
> > meanings of loi/lei, mei, etc.), is this at least a workable
> > definition?
>
> No
Ironic, since I think it is the only decent one around so far, and
endeavours to be fully CLL-consistent.
--And.