[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 01:11 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >We all agree that the vlaste are rife with poor wordings. Sometimes > >that wordings are unclear, sometimes they give rise to contradiction, > >sometimes they fail to express the designers' intention. Si'e is an > >instance of the last of these. But these are the baselined materials, > >and they define current SL > > Thus we bear the fruit of people insisting on baselining a document that > wasn't written with the intent of being a baseline document (none of the > wordlists were - they were LogFlash file inputs) Tell-me-aboud-it. I thought you were a pro-baseliner.
I am, but I recognize that we baselined some things too soon. I opposed some of those baselines being adopted when they were, but I lose my share of political values too. And my job, once they were indeed baselined, was to defend the baseline, regardless of my own feelings.
> I think that tu'o is ambiguous between mo'ezo'e and mo'ezi'o in its > definition. In one grammatical context, that of a dummy argument in PN or > RPN, it seems clearly to be mo'ezi'o. When used as a digit variable in a > digit string such as retu'o for twenty-something, it is clearly mo'ezo'e I wasn't aware of the "retu'o" usage.
I'm not sure if it has been used, but it has been thought of, once we had created tu'o for the other purpose.
> I define whether it is or is not quantified by whether the syntax allows > it. I am a pragmatist As you yourself often rightly say, not everything grammatical is meaningful. And assuming otherwise can be harmful, as in the present instance (e.g. it being so hard to refer to the number 2).
li re lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org