[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> 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
CLL describes a usage of tu'o that is consistent with mo'ezi'o and
INCONSISTENT with mo'ezo'e, and it does not describe a usage that
is consistent with mo'ezo'e.
> >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.
It is self-evident. The fact that it was John that came up with
mo'ezi'o and mo'ezo'e as a way to express the rival meanings
doesn't mean that it's not obvious that both zi'o and CLL tu'o
annul argument places.
> 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
Since mo'ezo'e would make equally good since as a mekso operand,
one can't argue that the zo'e/zi'o distinction is function of
tu'o's use in quantifiers/mekso.
If we abandon the principle of consistency and allow words to change
meaning willynilly from one construction to another, then the
language becomes unworkable, because every word will have to have
a definition for each construction in which it can conceivably
occur.
> >#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.
We're not saying that tu'o can't mean mo'ezo'e because CLL doesn't say
it can. We're saying that tu'o can't mean mo'ezo'e because CLL does
say it means mo'ezi'o and because this is incompatible with it meaning
mo'ezo'e.
> 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
To see whether it is deducible, you simply need to think rationally.
As for whether it was actually deduced from CLL, that is irrelevant;
it depends on who was paying how much attention when -- that is, it
depends on the accidental facts of history, not on the facts of
Lojban.
> >#But in addition, lack of other examples is not a definition
> >
> >If retu'o, "twentysomething", existed in CLL then tu'o would be
> >contradictorily
> >defined
>
> I disagree. It means merely that the definition "= me'ozi'o" is in error
> or at least incomplete
It can't be in plain error, because it's what the bloody book clearly
says on p450. Certainly the definition could be incomplete, but,
as I said in my previous reply to you, it is ludicrous to think that
an apparently consistent definition in CLL is actually incomplete in
such a way that would make it inconsistent. That's why Nick volubly
voiced his agreement. If we listen to you, then it means that even
the apparently unbroken bits of CLL may, when completed by what is
not in CLL, turn out to be broken.
> > 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
It's deduction based on what is said on page 450.
> >***
> >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
As you yourself were saying repeatedly when we were discussing si'e,
the ma'oste was written carelessly and confusedly. We therefore have
all agreed that, other things being equal, when there is *conflict*
between CLL and ma'oste (i.e. when they can't each be correct), it is
CLL that is right.
> 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 ma'oste is broken. CLL isn't.
> 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
Yes, CLL doesn't say "tu'o = mo'ezi'o" in those very words, but it gives
a definition equivalent to it. Tell me how the definition of tu'o on
p450 is not equivalent to mo'ezi'o.
> Here is what CLL says (other than repeating the keyword "null operand" as a
> definition)
[...]
> 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
That's right. What removes the possibility of mo'ezo'e are
principles of Consistency: a word can't be ambiguous; a word's
meaning does not change from one environment to another, unless
specified to the contrary.
> Meanwhile the cmavo list defines it as:
> >tu'o PA5 null operand
> > digit/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
It's thanks to the ma'oste that the whole confusion about tu'o exists.
> 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.
But that isn't the claim. The claim is that it follows from the governing
principles of Lojban that tu'o does not mean mo'ezo'e.
Of course not everybody realized that. Partly it's because people are
sometimes wrong, and partly it's because people learn cmavo from the
ma'oste.
> I contend that
> almost all usage of tu'o before mid-2001 was as an elliptical number, which
> was null standing alone.
This was done either because of the erroneous ma'oste or simply on the
basis of an erroneous reading of CLL.
> 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.
If all deducible truths were obvious and did not have to be discovered
and learnt, then the study of mathematics would not exist. The same
goes for Lojban.
> 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
Which is irrelevant. We know perfectly well from the evidence of natural
language that ambiguity is usually not an impediment to clear understanding.
> I also present a summary of actual usage in Lojban List:
[...]
> 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)
We had a similar situation with vo'a. Nick argued that usage can
override CLL. But if tu'o means mo'ezo'e then it can't mean mo'ezi'o,
since there are environments where both values would be sensical.
> >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
... usage based on the ma'oste.
> 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
You are arguing for outright ambiguity. I was going to say that this is
contrary to basic Lojban principles, but in fact I don't see why we
can't have a word meaning "zi'o a zo'e" -- indeed, I would favour
such a word being the default value for elliptized sumti (there's
a long exchange among me, Nick & xorxes about this, somewhere on
the wiki). Likewise, we could have a PA that means "3 or 7", say, if
we really wanted to. This would give us the following paradigm:
zi'o mo'e zi'o
zo'e mo'e zo'e
zi'o a zo'e tu'o = mo'e zi'o a zo'e
Note, though, that this conflicts with CLL. CLL defines tu'o as
"mo'e zi'o", not as "mo'e zi'o a zo'e".
> >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
You misrepresent the facts. CLL is being interpreted on the basis of
what CLL says.
> > 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)
There exists no meaning for tu'o that could consistently cover CLL,
the ma'oste and usage. Something has therefore got to be broken.
> 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
There is no full meaning. You have to realize that your supposed full
meaning is incoherent or incompatible with CLL.
--And.