[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> >... 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"
I have a slight reservation about this. If one must use inner
tu'o to get Substance (as we would like in AL), then all well
and good. But if {loi (ro)} can refer to substance then there
is no guarantee that {pi su'o loi ro} gives you a collective:
{pi mu loi ci broda nanmu} might give you, say, the bottom
halves of three people, or bodyparts totalling half the whole.
> >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
It matters in AL too in the sense that the cost of precision
must be less than the benefit. That is, ideally, things are as
easy to say as they are in the languages we already speak, but
are much more precise.
> >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
Plus, the ethos back in those days, when Lojbab was a bigger influence
on the community, was Usage Decides. One was encouraged not to tinker
but to use.
> >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.)
Except they would probably say they were making mistakes, if they
could be brought to understand the nature of their error.
--And.