[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> > Message: 16
> > Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:53:11 -0000
> > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
> > Subject: RE: mei, latest cause celebre
> >
> >> I agree 100%, provided you also accept the corresponding def. of
> >> "lojbanindividual", which is "natural individual or portion of
> >> substance"
> >> (and I think this is in fact uncontroversial)
> >
> > Yes and no. If djacu is perforce what you are calling 'substance'
> > then certainly lo djacu is a countable amount of substance. But,
> > following xod's lead we have defined 'Substance' as uncountable
> > (and I can't remember whether absence of constituent members, i.e
> > noncollectiveness was part of the definition). So by our special
> > definition of Substance, lo never 'refers' to a substance, while
> > loi never refers to a countable individual
>
> Still don't get it. You are allowing that remna can be considered as
> uncountable (cf. pussy), and djacu as countable (portions).
Yes. Me & John agree on this, & I hope we all do.
> I presume
> you're saying that underlyingly, water is still a substance, whether
> you count portions or not, and people are still individuals up until
> the time you put them through the grinder, whether you ignore the
> distinctions between them or not? But that's a nicety and essentialism,
> surely
John seemed to be saying that underlying;y, water is still a substance,
and that {lo djacu} means "portion of water". If so, then {lo djacu}
means "countable portion of water".
> > Message: 18
> > Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:53:17 -0000
> > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
> > Subject: RE: fundamentalism as fundamental (RE: Re: gadri paradigm:2
> > excellent proposals
> >
> > John:
> >> And Rosta scripsit:
> >>
> >>> A. Ultra-fundamentalist. CLL is gospel except where it can
> >>> conclusively
> >>> be proved to be self-contradictory or to contravene inviolable
> >>> principles
> >
> > Okay: the intent was to contrast with Nick's variety of pragmatic
> > fundamentalism, which is manifest also sometimes in you. I suppose
> > that that can be summed up as "you needn't honour the letter so
> > long as you honour the spirit"
>
> A little loose for me. My own take is, we subtract stuff only when
> self-contradictory or against the principles (intolerable ambiguity
> etc.); we add stuff somewhat more liberally, in the hope of
> forestalling the Academians
That seems the best way to alienate the fewest number.
> > Message: 19
> > Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:53:18 -0000
> > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
> > Subject: RE: gadri
>
> >> It is distressingly clear that Lojban is shortchanged of any tools to
> >> distinguish between collectives and substances, and I'll settle even
> >> for gismu at this stage
> >
> > {loi tu'o} does substances
> > {lo tu'o} presumably does a countable amount of universal-grindee
> > {lo PAmei} does countable collectives
> > {piroloiro}, {pirolu'o} probably do uncountable collectives
>
> loi tu'o: substance
pisu'oloitu'o = uncountable portion of substance of all broda
piroloitu'o = substance of all broda
> lo tu'o: portion of substance
countable portion
> lo PAmei: lojbanmass, sorry, we already tried that
If it's not {tu'omei} then PA guarantees there are members.
{lo} guarantees the countability.
I don't see how this can mean anything but Collective.
> piroloiro; singleton ('uncountable') collective
yes
> loi tu'o loi ro: substance of collective
presumably, yes
> PA lo piro loi ro: countable collectives
Abuse of piQ. But piQ should dieinthearse, so I'm talking AL here,
I guess.
Let's say I don't know what this should mean in SL. I'll
consider it gobbledygook until someone can show that piQ is
not bollocks.
> PA lo piro loi tu'o: countable masses (which is the same as PA lo tu'o)
>
> > In other words, {tu'o} erases the boundaries between members
> > {lo} gives you countability. {loi} gives you uncountability
> > Adding {piro} before {loi} makes sure you are actually referring
> > to {loi} and not to {pisu'oloi}
>
> How safely established is that last bit?
It is safely established on the basis of reason but not on the basis
of general acknowledgement.
> > So... I think your wish is granted...
>
> I'll wait on that; it's what I'd dearly want, but I'm waiting on a few
> more amens
>
> >> 3. Unique
> >> I wonder whether:
> >
> > lo du be ro broda
> > lo du be ro (lu'a) le'i broda
> > lo du be ro (lu'a) la'i broda
> >
> > would suffice (by the criteria that the BF uses to judge sufficiency)?
>
> That's veridical, I see (as you say below). I think it's both clear and
> awkward enough for a new LAhE to be accepted anyway. New propaganda
> angle to push: Bring Back Mr Shark! :-)
>
> > I think we can simulate intensionals (that would cope with cases
> > where lV'i broda is empty) as:
> >
> > le du be ro broda
> > le du be ro (lu'a) le'i broda
> > le du be ro (lu'a) la'i broda
>
> .... head's spinning. So from -spec -ver , you're now going to +spec
> -ver +unique . I want Mr Doctor (i.e. any avatar thereof), where Mr
> Doctor can be made up
Whereas the {lo du be ro} claim that there is something that is
every member of lV'i broda, the {le du be ro} don't. They would
work when lV'i broda is empty, or when you just don't want to
claim {da du be ro} is true, but do want to make use of the
notion.
> .... Remind me why {mi djica loi mikce} was rejected as a general
> solution? Because whatever it was sinks this too, I think..
Setting aside the problem of us not yet having agreed what {loi
mikce} means, there are two further problems:
* we want a single countable doctor
* we want a doctor even if there are no doctors
> A collective is a lojbanmass comprised if intact individuals, with
> potentially emergent properties, depending on the context (selbri)
>
> A tuple (or whatever) is a collective where the selbri holds only of
> the collective and not of the component individuals: it's all emergence
>
> joi does Lojbanmass
>
> jo'u and (at least today) loi ro do collective
piroloiro
> The Nick-tuple may not be admitted to exist by anyone, and I fully
> admit that lots which we might think as done by Nick-tuple are really
> just done by Lojbanmass
>
> The Nick-tuple may well be just a set
The Nick-tuple is "lo-Collective broda cu brode ije ro broda na ku
brode", I think. It seems quite easy to define. As to whether SL
needs a gadri or LAhE for it, I decline to comment.
> > Message: 25
> > Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:50:11 -0000
> > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
> > Subject: RE: Digest Number 134
>
> > 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
>
> Well at least this ain't the universal grinder. Here, I'm more than
> happy to let pragmatics say we ain't doing this, but if we do, we can
> leave this to gismu:
>
> loi nanmu poi ro cmima be lu'i ke'a cu mulno
>
> loi nanmu poi su'o cmima be lu'i ke'a cu spisa
xorxes has persuaded me of the rightness of rejcting this use of
lu'i.
> >> 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
>
> One isn't being encouraged to tinker now either of course :-) . And
> also, as xod said, all travel into uncharted terrain is tinkering
>
> Bob will himself tell you (and he said it to the board) that he wasn't
> expecting Usage Decides to deviate from the baseline so wilfully and
> soon.
That was wishful-thinking on his part, though.
> So Bob's spirit is being followed here. I think what has changed
> is that there is a tangible fundamentalism in the community (I was
> never as vehement on it, I don't think, as Jay or Jordan); but the talk
> of baselines has always assumed a freeze and some period of adhering to
> the freeze
>
> The expectation was (and I believe remains, as far as Bob is concerned)
> that we can get away with leaving semantics to Usage; my current
> position is that we must leave less to Usage, since that's where all
> the real deviation will happen. The syntax. we're really not all that
> concerned with, and everyone is either adhering to it, or not realising
> they're deviating (I am unable to write grammatical Lojban, as you all
> will know.) But how to do an intensional reference? No, that shall no
> longer be left to usage, because leaving it to usage has resulted in
> lo'e and loi being conscripted for purposes they weren't intended for
> in CLL, and this is regarded as a problem to be solved, by, I think,
> everyone
Quite. I think your position is perfectly coherent. So long as you
don't insist that xorxes has an ethical obligation to subscribe to
it.
> >> 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
>
> Excellent point. This is what I was alluding to when I said to xod "I
> don't like it that Lojban is turning into a language of flaggelators"
> --- which is what I do ("Oh, I didn't get intensionals! Woe betide me,
> I shall sin no more! Oh, I had no idea I should have used a termset! I
> shall sin no more! Oh, I don't want a specific event, but any event!
> May I be absolved!")
>
> But... recognising error here also means I've learned something. I'd
> rather that..
I, OTOH, think it is an excellent thing that we are turning into a
language of flagellators. At long last it shows that people (a)
give a shit and (b) have the nous to realize where they have been
thuccing up. [_thuc_ is a borrowing from Edwin's version of English
orthography] We don't need outright flagellation, but we do need
people to realize that try as they might, they are probably making
loads of mistakes without realizing it, and that an ongoing programme
of logical and jboscological vigilance is required to discover
these errors.
--And.