[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 06:47 PM 1/9/03 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
I fully support And in the following, and regard Bob's attempt to define tu'o as mo'ezo'e as perverse:
I am not attempting to define tu'o in terms of other cmavo *at all*. I think that is misguided. Furthermore, I don't think that CLL defines tu'o as mo'ezi'o, but merely describes a usage which is consistent with mo'ezi'o and this fact is evident in the history of expanding the range of usage of tu'o to its current extent.
*** cu'u la .and. Lojbab: #At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: #> > >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 #> #>If retu'o is not canonical then it is plainly wrong, seeing as the mo'ezi'o #>meaning of tu'o is canonical. # #I don't know what you mean by canonical. If you mean that CLL says that #tu'o and mo'ezi'o are identical in meaning, can I trouble you for a cite, #because I certainly don't see it. Indeed zi'o is never discussed in #interaction with anything else. In the mekso chapter, tu'o is introduced as an operand that turns a binary operator into a unary one -- i.e. it is the operand counterpart of the sumti zi'o.
I agree with the part before the dashes. The i.e. is an abstract interpretation of that limited fact, which was NOT self-evident, but instead was only recognized on the basis of Cowan's non-CLL opinion. Meanwhile, the usages of tu'o we are discussing here are in fact NOT mekso operand usages, but quantifier usages (which are explained elsewhere in CLL besides that section.
#It is plausible that the only uses of tu'o in CLL could be replaced by #mo'ezi'o, but even that is arguable since there is no formal definition of #the combination mo'ezi'o - it must be inferred. That tu'o = mo'ezi'o can be deduced, since we know from CLL what each of tu'o, mo'e and zi'o mean.
No we don't. We know only what CLL says about them. But CLL is not a complete explication of possible uses of cmavo. And the fact that it was NOT deduced from CLL, but instead adopted from a Cowan opinion independent from CLL, shows that it isn't as clearly deducible as you say now.
#But in addition, lack of other examples is not a definition.If retu'o, "twentysomething", existed in CLL then tu'o would be contradictorilydefined.
I disagree. It means merely that the definition "= me'ozi'o" is in error or at least incomplete.
I think it is therefore legitimate to deduce that retu'o cannot mean "twentysomething".
Deduction based on an assumption that is not implicit to CLL.
***
I mean, we could define {re} as meaning 6006 when quantifying
unicorns and 2 otherwise; there's nothing in CLL preventing that,
either. But that is disgusting, and malicious. Bob wanted {retu'o} to
mean twenties. If Bob had put it in CLL, we'd have a mess to clean
up, and it would not have survived the cleanup. But because Bob
didn't put {retu'o} into CLL, why should I now accept that tu'o =
both mo'ezi'o and mo'ezo'e?
1. I didn't write CLL 2. CLL is NOT the only baseline document we have to consider.
Only that which CLL uses is defined.
False. If that is the case, then the cmavo and gismu lists are not baselined, and I shouldn't have heard so much flak for annotating proposed wording changes on my personal copy of same.
The wiki page on tu'o shows that even And understands that the cmavo list allows both zo'e and zi'o interpretations http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?tu%27o (the LLG wiki appears down at the moment, so pardon the pointer to Jay's).
The relevant baseline policy points appear to be:
* In the event of inconsistencies, the published printed text of The Complete Lojban Language, will take precedence by default. * The published gismu and cmavo lists will be presumed as valid, by default. The byfy can choose at its discretion whether to abide by the intent of earlier language designers or by the strict wording used, and can add clarification or modify the wording based on its decisions.So if the cmavo list and CLL are indeed inconsistent as stated (not as interpreted) then CLL wins. But CLL does NOT define tu'o as mo'ezi'o, and the cmavo list includes the CLL usage, so they are not inconsistent.
Here is what CLL says (other than repeating the keyword "null operand" as a definition)
However, it is possible to use an operator in infix style even though it has more or fewer than two operands, through the use of a pair of tricks: the null operand tu'oand the null operator ge'a. The first is suitable when there are too few operands, the second when there are too many.
We would use: <p> <pre><a name=e14d1>14.1) li tu'o va'a ny. du li no vu'u ny.The-number (null) additive-inverse n equals the-number zero minus n.-<math>-n = 0 - n</math></pre><cx "tu'o, for infix operations with too few operands"><cx "null operand, for infix operations with too few operands"><cx "operands, too few for infix operation">The tu'ofulfills the grammatical requirement for a left operand for the infix use of va'a, even though semantically none is needed or wanted.
In Lojban, RP operators are always parsed with exactly two operands. What about operators which require only one operand, or more than two operands? The null operand tu'oand the null operator ge'aprovide a simple solution. A one-operand operator like va'aalways appears in a reverse Polish context as tu'o va'a. The tu'oprovides the second operand, which is semantically ignored but grammatically necessary.
<pre><a name=e16d3>16.3) li fu'a ciboi muboi vu'u du
li fu'a reboi tu'o va'a
The-number (RP!) (three, five, minus) equals
the-number (RP!) two, null, negative-of.
<math>3 - 5 = -2</math>
So we see only that tu'o can be used in this particular way; this neither defines tu'o or removes the possibility of other usages.
Meanwhile the cmavo list defines it as:
tu'o PA5 null operanddigit/number: null operand (used in unary operations); a non-specific/elliptical number
Note the second half of the definition, which is more akin to zo'e than zi'o. This does not mean that tu'o means "mo'ezo'e though, merely that the definition includes that possibility.
We can also consider usage, which is anything but supportive of the claim that tu'o has been clearly understood to mean mo'ezi'o. I contend that almost all usage of tu'o before mid-2001 was as an elliptical number, which was null standing alone. When tu'o was proposed as a vacuous quantifier at that point, it was clearly perceived as *novelty* by all parties and not clearly established in documentation. Cowan effectively supported this by stating his opinion (not based on CLL) that tu'o meant mo'ezi'o, but until he said so, not even And and Jorge so claimed. Since then, almost all use of tu'o has been as tu'o du'u and tu'o ka which seem to have been accepted by most jboske-ists, but elliptical tu'o has recurred in discussion of dates.
All of the elliptical usages of tu'o seem to have been clearly understood by readers.
I also present a summary of actual usage in Lojban List: Nickhttp://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9107/msg00000.html (null operand like CLL examples)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10077 (tu'omoi, seems elliptical)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10712 (tu'o for elliptical/null date value)
Veijo (elliptical number) http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9406/msg00034.html lojbab (elliptical number) http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9412/msg00336.html http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9412/msg00370.htmlhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/2712 (which is much like my 20-something example)
It just so happens ... We thought of that one, and there is a "non-specific number" tu'o and a "typical number" no'o corresponding to sumti placeholders zo'e and zu'i. So pazetu'otu'o is the 1700s. The 18th century is of course le pabimoi ke nanca panonomei (or ctona'a). '
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9865 (ce'uxitu'o - elliptical) Nora (elliptical number): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/1068 xod (elliptical number): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/5422 .i mi di'i puzu ze'u pensi je darlu lei sidbo sela'u tu'oki'omei cacra jorge (mixed usages) and And (vacuous quantifier): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/5817(attempting to EBNF numbers, his grammar for tu'o as a "complex" appears to be elliptical but is more restricted than actual usage to that point) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8693 (appears to be the first proposal for tu'o as a vacuous quantifier, but is not a usage - And immediately liked this idea, but xod did not when he first saw it used:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9064I omit many many interchanges in which And and Jorge use tu'o as a vacuous quantifier http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10379 (pc fails to understand this use of tu'o but finally understands in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10519) Thereafter, the three of them often use "tu'odu'u" and "tu'oka". Adam also recognizes and uses tu'odu'u. xod seems resistant.
Pierre (sees a range of meanings in various contexts (non-usage)) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9223 cowanhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/9495 (expressing belief that tu'o means mo'ezi'o, but he does not justify this in terms of CLL text - merely states it as his opinion)
If we go by a count of users, we get an almost even split between predominantly elliptical usages and vacuous usages (wherein it is unclear that "vacuous" is identical with zi'o, though they are similar). In number of usages, of course the tu'odu'u/tu'oka usages overwhelm everything else (and I don't know that these usages are currently accepted as opposed to jboske proposals, since I don't see tu'o used at all in your lesson book).
CLL uses tu'o as mo'ezi'o and does not use zi'o as mo'ezo'e or mo'e lo grutraktinidio . Therefore only mo'ezi'o is a canonical use of tu'o. Founder hunches and intent are irrelevant to canonicity. If I allow you to define tu'o as mo'ezo'e, I also allow you to define tu'o as mo'e lo grutraktinidio, and I will not.
The usage history shows that it is not mere "founder hunches and intent", but the bulk of history up to the novel interpretation in mid-2001 which was NOT at that point justified on the basis of CLL, but was seen as an consistent extension.
I don't want to define tu'o as mo'ezi'o OR as mo'ezo'e; it is a word in its own right, and not an abbreviation. The cmavo list definition and actual usage clearly allow for both, with more history for the elliptical version being understood as "unimportant/meaningless" and therefore "null". I have no problem with the novel uses of tu'o so long as they don't invalid historical usage.
The BPFK (if I ever get it started) considers what gets added to the CLL prescription.
The prescription is NOT limited to CLL. CLL decides in case of conflict, but CLL is being back-interpreted to fit a later concept in this case, and does NOT decide this one.
Founder intent is of interest, but is not decisive, and is assuredly not canonical. tu'o = mo'ezo'e is not in the CLL prescription. And I for one don't want it there either.
I don't care to change what is in the CLL prescription - I don't claim that CLL is wrong, merely that it doesn't cover the full meaning of tu'o and the portion of the meaning that it covers is not sufficient to define the word as presented in the baselined cmavo list and in actual usage (this should be obvious because CLL ONLY covers tu'o usage as an operand, and not as a quantifier or a number which are distinct grammatical uses of selma'o PA).
CLL is not the entirety of the prescription, but merely describes and explains both intent (as Cowan understood it) and major uses that had been seen at the point it was written. I don't anticipate that we are going to write major addenda to CLL to cover all the stuff that people have done since 1997; we are only correcting inconsistencies and things that are wrong in CLL. We are also writing a dictionary, and I want the full original meaning of tu'o in the dictionary, not the restricted meaning used in one section of CLL being generalized to replace that full meaning.
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