[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 11:54 AM 1/10/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> If it is agreed that tu'o cannot overlap both zi'o and zo'e (I remain > unconvinced of this), It is impossible to convince you of anything. If you thought 2 + 2 = 5, there is no way I could convince you otherwise. Sometimes, weight of opinion seems to convince you; but not argument.
Precisely. That is because I recognize that "argument" is bogus. It is based on assumptions that are not agreed upon, and hence cannot generate results that are agreed upon.
> then this is a clear case for adding a new cmavo, in > which case the CLL usage would justify giving tu'o the zi'o interpretation > (though I don't think it requires a zi'o interpretation to make sense as a > null operand, it is consistent with same to do so), but the case has to be> made that tu'o needs that specific a definition, ESPECIALLY in light of the> fact that I don't think we have any other cmavo that are simple > abbreviations for a two-cmavo string (which seems like a waste of cmavo to > me), so it seem clear that there was no INTENT that tu'o mean something so > simple I imagine that the option of using mo'ezi'o hadn't occurred to anyone at the time. Or, if it had, perhaps it might have been thought too long winded -- after all, you are all in favour of mex being short winded -- or perhaps it might have been felt that each major paradigm warrants it's own ma-counterpart, zo'e-counterpart, zu'i- counterpart and zi'o-counterpart.
I think we would have likely gone with the latter, and Jorge would have complained about all the useless cmavo, because all the useless cmavo that he complains about now came from the same sorts of generalization.
Like there were gismu minimalists that wanted the gismu list to stop growing there were cmavo minimalists. The gismu minimalists won. The cmavo non-minimalists were limited by the cmavo space, and there was too little room to grow for there to be worth a similar fight. Now we are going to have a fight between cmavo minimalists and Your school which would add all kinds of cmavo based on what you think would be reduced ambiguity and optimal abbreviation. Forgive me in advance for siding with the minimalists as much as possible, since like every one else except possibly Jorge, I haven't learned most of the cmavo, and don't want to make the job harder in pursuit of reduced ambiguity/vagueness that is not necessary to communication.
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