[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > Yeah. And Lojbab is right
> >
> > We are arguing over tu'o = "elliptical, any number" vs. "vacuous, no
> > number". But the "no number" interpretation isn't appropriate for du'u. I
> > still claim what's wanted for du'u is "one is the only conceivable number
> > here", which should be clear from the context (the fact that it's a du'u)
> > and elided away
>
> I don't agree. For one thing, a refusal to quantify could in certain
> contexts be interpreted as an invitation to glork the appropriate
> quantifier, in the sense that in certain contexts a speaker who says
> {zi'o catra ko'a} may be interpreted as communicating {zo'e catra
> zi'o}. But secondly and more importantly, what grounds are there for
> saying that there is exactly one du'u broda? Do we know what criteria
> we can use to tell that there is one and not two?
Sure. If the du'us are the equal, then they are the same du'u. If we
wanted to say that multiple identical du'us formed sets of number > 1,
then the counting of them would become meaningless because in any system
we could say that there were any whole number of du'u "there". Therefore
if du'us are worth counting, they are countably 1.
No, we don't. If
> one is the only conceivable number, then we don't really know that
> we are looking at one. It is something that simply can't be counted.
> Hence the validity of tu'o.
>
> > The ma'oste uses the unfortunate, confusing phrase "null operand", but
> > explains it further with "elliptical number", which means "any number" and
> > doesn't really leave any reasonable interpretation of "no number". And
> > usage supported that unanimously before the doubly-erroneous "no number"
> > usage for du'u was introduced. But it would be nice if we had such a cmavo
> > for "no number" (for substances), so we should create one and stop abusing
> > poor tu'o
> >
> > (I can't check the CLL on tu'o, since lojban.org is down.)
>
> If you did check CLL you'd see it unequivocally supports only "no number".
Yikes! I checked it, and you're right, it seems to support "no number",
and not at all "any number"! We are screwed!!
> I think we all agree that (a) we want a way to say "any number",
> (b) we want a way to say "no number", and (c) BF should specify
> the Right ways & rule on the meaning of {tu'o}.
>
> > Or we could create a cmavo for "is the only conceivable number", use that
> > alone for "no number", and annoy me by appending it to pa to denote the
> > quantification of du'u
>
> Can you think of cases where some number other than pa is the only
> conceivable number? I can't. And so I can't see how "is the only
> conceivable number" differs from "no number".
"Inconceivable" means tautological, when it doesn't simply denote a lack
of imagination. Therefore my canonical example is "2 = 2tu'o"; 2 equals 2
and any other answer is inconceivable. I could present mind-teasers,
however, with the equivalent tautology buried in more interesting
phenomena, such as the 2 sides of a coin for any coin with sufficient
reasonability conditions.
Upon reflection, a "this is tautological" marker should be an evidential
UI. se'o might work; any sentient being should be expected to be able to
process tautologies.
--
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();