[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
> It would be good to have that clarified, but that seems to be
> what is consistent with CLL. Similarly {piso'i} is "a large
> portion" and not "many portions".
Um.
If that is so, then {pi ro loi broda} is not true when {ro lo broda} is
true.
It is not _necessarily_ true. It depends on the particular
case. For example, if {ro broda cu grake li pa}, every
broda weighs 1g, it does not follow that {piro loi broda cu
grake li pa}. The whole mass will weigh much more if there
are many broda. On the other hand, if {ro broda cu blabi}
then it is also likely that {piro loi broda cu blabi}.
This depends on the semantics of the particular property,
it does not depend on a logic of {loi}.
... and {pi ro loi} can do collectives after all? (My real worry was
individuals vs. collective; substance I thought was taken care of with
tu'o anyway.)
Yes, but {pisu'o loi} does collectives to the same extent
that {piro loi} does collectives. When they do, one gives
"some broda collectively" and the other gives "every broda
collectively".
Herewith, the flame. This isn't necessarily about this in particular, it's in general. In fact, I've toned it down enough that it's not really a flame any more... Standard Lojban does not exist for your amusement; it is a community venture, with community norms.
Yes. Not written norms, and not a set of norms everybody agrees on, but I do agree that we're a community.
I know you think sisku sucks, which might be why you kept using buska in your examples.
I used {buska} because I had to use a predicate meaning
"person x1 looks for object x2" in those examples. If I had
used {sisku} it would have been more confusing. In actual usage
I never use buska, because there I can use sisku with my
preferred meaning in the hope that usage will decide
correctly eventually.
But I am not interested in discarding sisku; the fundament stands unless proven unworkable, and sisku is much too long established to countenance such a change.
I don't expect the official definition of sisku to change any time soon.
What you personally want to express yourself with is neither here nor there, as far as Standard Lojban is concerned. I don't think it is even legitimate as an argument in Academic Lojban.
I agree. It only matters in Organic Lojban.
The essentialists and the fundamentalists will retort that you're being malrarbau, and I do not know of a good response to that.
That not all rarbau is malrarbau.
Yes, a Lojban
with {terpa leka} and {djica ledu'u} would be terribly icky, and we'll
kludge from here to eternity before we have to accept that as a
solution.
Good!
But {sisku leka} is fact and should not be negotiable. If
that's not 'find', fine; but that's the official gismu. Same as with
xruti. We simply cannot throw everything open again.
As I said, I don't expect changes in the official definitions
of those. I do still maintain some hope for sanity to prevail
through usage. (Since you mention 'find', {facki} is another
of those messed up predicates, but in this case we can use
{tolcri} for the basic meaning.)
The BPFK will be a fundamentalist venture, which will presuppose things such as sisku. This was stated overtly, and the vote was taken and passed. But if the BPFK is to be fundamentalist, then arguments like "I don't like it aesthetically" are illegitimate to it. So are "I don't like a prenex-bound model of logic" (yeah, but Lojban *is* prenex-bound, so propositionalism is completely legitimate within Lojban).
Sounds reasonable. We are not discussing here as BPFK members though, are we?
So is your Origen's** defense of "I was using this intensional lo'e before the CLL defined it, and they refused to listen to me when they formulated CLL."
True, that's not a valid BPFK argument. It's still my defense for my usage.
You lost that battle, though, and Basil of Cappadocia came along and invented the Trinity, and the Trinity is non-negotiable however novel it is. And if you stay with Standard Lojban, you will have to relearn stuff, same as everyone else.
I don't plan to limit myself to whatever is defined as Standard Lojban in my usage. Lojban belongs to its speakers, so it belongs to me to the extent that I use it. (I would also assert that my usage is no less standard than anybody else's usage, it only gets labeled so because I discuss it and analyse it publicly, but I'm sure we can find as many deviations from "the standard" in everybody else's usage as well.) Of course, I'd like the official definitions to be as close as possible to what I like, but I won't be offended when they go against my preferrence. That does not mean I have to change my preferrences.
The board, and I as chair of the BPFK, have made and are prepared to make compromises to achieve a baselined standard Lojban; we were perfectly within our rights, after all, to say "not a jot, not a tittle of the wordlists changes." The way politics works, however, you have to make compromises too, when you take part in the same political venture. We didn't make the compromises selflessly after all; we made the compromises to extract compromises. Otherwise there can be no one output of the BPFK. And I cannot preside over that outcome.
I know I won't like the output of BPFK in its every detail, but I'm pretty confident that it will make a positive and significant contribution to Lojban.
On your own time (and jboske regrettably still counts as 'your own time'), you can do what you like. You won't be able to in BPFK. None of us will.
I wouldn't join BPFK if I thought I would be forced to do something I don't like, but I'm sure that won't be the case. I will be happy to follow any rules you dictate on how the BPFK debate is to proceed. But surely open debate will still proceed here on non-BPFK topics.
**Origen: the greatest Christian theologian of the 2nd century AD. Unfortunately for him, Christianity was codified in the 4th century, and Origen didn't have enough divine inspiration to anticipate everything Basil of Cappadocia came up with. Where Origen conflicted with Basil, Origen was deemed heretical. Sucks being an early adopter, sometimes. ;-)
As long as it doesn't involve physical punishment, I'm confortable as a heretic... :) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963