[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Warning: I get really really really pissed off in this message. Lojbab: > At 11:46 AM 1/10/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >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 > > But it does describe a usage of tu'o that is consistent with the cmavo > list, which species NEITHER mo'ezo'e nor mo'ezi'o but suggests that both > are plausibly expressed using tu'o It does NOT describe a usage of tu'o that is consistent with the cmavo list. The cmavo list is broken in this regard. There is no way to interpret the ma'oste entry in such a way as to make it both coherent and compatible with CLL. > Furthermore, there is no inherent rule that zo'e cannot include zi'o within > its range of meaning. zo'e means some elliptical sumti place value. zi'o, > ce'u and all the other KOhA are possible values for a sumti place. Either (A) what you say is wrong, because it has never been definitively prescribed one way or the other, or (B) what you say is wrong, because these issues have all been discussed and there was a clear and reasoned consensus that zo'e would never cover zi'o and would cover ce'u only in certain tightly-specified environments. I won't go into all the reasons here, but it follows from both (A) and (B) that it is pointless to discuss it with you. I fully agree that the current prescription is a noxious mess that should die as soon as possible. But it's no use you trying to tell me that Lojban works in way that is neither specified in the prescription nor consistent with the rational jboske consensus. > You can > call this a kludge, or perverse or illogical if you want, but when we > defined zo'e we intended to be as wideranging and nonspecific as possible, > and we especially intended it to eliminate arguments about what the logical > value of some sumti place should be (i.e. to eliminate the sort of > arguments we are now having, about what sort of non-value should be > inserted into a place that syntactically desires a sumti) I am past caring what the intention was. I'm sure the intentions were good. The results are a fiasco. The only solution is to prescribe the fiasco away. We can do that with the BF and not keep on with this stupid argument. > > > >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 > > That it was not self-evident should have been clear from the fact that you > did not see it until sometime after Jorge proposed using tu'o in the way he > did, and xod and pc did not see it until explained, and Cowan did not opine > the mo'ezi'o interpretation until it was presented to him as a question > wherein YOU ASSUMED that tu'o meant mo'ezo'e, and asked what would > represent mo'ezi'o - it was in the answer to that message where Cowan > opined that tu'o meant mo'ezi'o If you just read the ma'oste, the best guess about what tu'o means is mo'ezo'e (given that "null operand" is unintelligible) -- that's the most reasonable assumption. All the supposed lack of self-evidence concerns the use of tu'o=mo'ezi'o as a quantifier, not the interpretation of tu'o as mo'ezi'o. AFAIK that was controversial only because of the ma'oste entry. > >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 > > Every word, cmavo or brivla, has a range of meanings, which is somewhat > affected by the construction. It becomes polysemy when the meanings are > sufficiently disparate as to sow confusion about the speaker's intent (not > evident here) or when the meanings get sufficiently disjoint as to not be > related > > je joins tanru elements with a logical AND, except when it appears in a > construction with I, in which case it joins sentences. That is a word > changing meanings in different constructions, and it was perfectly > intentional How does it change its meaning? Anyway, it is natural that the interpretation of a word should be to some extent construction-specific. The point is that it mustn't be ambiguous and it mustn't happen willynilly; it has to be part of the prescribed meaning of the word. > > > 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 > > No it doesn't. It gives a usage which is consistent with the cmavo list > definition and keyword "null operand". Wrong, for reasons given above. > mo'ezi'o can also be used to create > a null operand, but CLL does not say this, and does not in any way equate > the two (there could be more ways to specify a null operand besides these > two, but CLL only gives the one in the cmavo list) Who gives a kalci whether CLL says mo'ez'io can create a null operand. The ONLY (yes, caps for shouting) relevant issue is that it says tu'o creates a null operand. Because the meaning of tu'o is controversial, we are using the uncontroversial unambiguous term "mo'ezi'o" to refer to the null operand. > >and because this is incompatible with it meaning mo'ezo'e > > It doesn't mean EITHER mo'ezo'e or mo'ezi'o. If you push the question, it > means both, and maybe more that is not representable by either Of course we push the question. And in doing so, I can't find a rational answer, and nor can you. > > > 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 is critical when one is arguing on the basis of CLL's baseline standard, > to pay attention to what CLL actually says, and not what we deduce from > it. Since CLL does not give comprehensive definitions of cmavo, merely > examples of SOME usages, deducing a definition from CLL is not possible - > all you can do is generalize from the examples given, and that > generalization could be erroneous Either CLL is something I can make deductions from, or I'll throw it in the bin. (Of course, that's just a gesture, & I'll retrieve the precious tome immediately after casting it thither.) From CLL we can extract some shreds that can form at least the basis of a language prescription. And even these meagre shreds you want to drown in the excrement of dubitability. All you succeed in doing is in magnifying or manufacturing disdain for CLL qua prescription. > >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 > > And that is precisely why I have objected so much to the informal jboske > debates. I reject the idea that understandings reached by a few people who > are "paying attention" when someone makes a "deduction" that is really a > false generalization, (or in this case states an opinion that everyone in > the discussion buys into because it fits the immediate purpose) is going to > change a baseline definition that, while it may be vague and unsatisfactory > to many people, is still a baseline definition. This is why Lojban should split into two dialects. Rational jboske discussion is probably fundamentally incompatible with the stable, constant shambles that is SL. > I resent the idea that the > right of jbosje to change the meanings of words based on its perceptions of > what is logical persists EVEN THOUGH people have complained, and have > explicitly stated that they are not interested in reading jboske debates Unfortunately nobody, not even jboske, has the idea that you resent, viz that jboske has this right. If it did have this right then Lojban would be in much much less of disastrous mess than it currently is at present. > The purpose of the byfy is to ensure that decisions affecting the baseline > are made with all parties "paying attention" and on notice that a decision > will be made so that they should pay attention I'm deeply pessimistic about its prospects, you won't be surprised to hear. > > > >#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 > > There is no mention of mo'e or zi'o on page 450. The definition given is > >tu'o PA null operand > which is precisely the keyword definition given in the cmavo list, which > goes on to explain more than one function for the word > > > 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 > > There is no definition given in CLL. There is an example and explanation > of the RPN usage of tu'o. But tu'o as a member of PA is not limited to RPN > usages. And your generalization from what is said in CLL to other possible > PA uses is different from and more restrictive than the cmavo list's > definition > > >is actually incomplete in such a way that would make it inconsistent > > It has not been established that there is any inconsistency, and if there > is, that inconsistency is internal to the cmavo list which is also a > baseline document. Yet no one has argued such an internal inconsistency > before. Yes they bloody well have. > Only when I object to a railroaded rewriting of the cmavo list > based on something that is NOT explicitly stated in CLL but only falsely > generalized based on a certain concept of "consistent" that is different > from the cmavo list's concept of consistent, has the claim been made that > CLL says what it plainly does NOT say Tripe. > >That's why Nick volubly voiced his agreement > > He voiced it without looking at or considering the evidence, which is what > the byfy is supposed to do. I will object when Nick breaks his own ground > rules just as I expect he will when I do > > >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 > > CLL is not the only baseline document, so that may indeed be the > case. Furthermore, despite the title, no one has ever claimed that CLL was > "complete" as a language specification, and in particular YOU have railed > most loudly at its incompleteness. By the byfy rules, it has become the > primary baseline source in case of overt contradiction, but not the only > source. When it is incomplete, it gets filled in from other baselined > documents, and from usage where applicable, to create dictionary definitions > > > > > 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 > > Page 450 says nothing about the use of tu'o in any role except as an RPN > operand. The grammar does not limit it to that role I have already addressed this point before. > > > >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 > > But CLL does not conflict with the ma'oste. It merely exemplifies only one > of the multiple uses for tu'o described in the ma'oste > > > > 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 byfy will decide that question, not jboske The BF will decide what to fix. But the brokenness of the ma'oste is a simple fact, if you accept the basic principles of Lojban. > >Yes, CLL doesn't say "tu'o = mo'ezi'o" in those very words, but it gives > >a definition equivalent to it > > It gives no definition at all other than the keyword (and we've noted that > keywords are not adequate definitions). It gives an explanation of a > particular usage. The as-yet-unwritten dictionary gives definitions > > >Tell me how the definition of tu'o on p450 is not equivalent to mo'ezi'o > > Quote "the definition" you are referring to, and explain how it fits the > definition of a "definition" If you had any interest in finding answers and solutions, then I would discuss these things with you. But you don't, so I won't. > > > 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 > > I disagree with the principle as you have stated it, based on the known and > intended limit of CLL to not try to cover all meanings of cmavo in all > environments > > Furthermore, the cmavo list, which is part of the language specification, > does specify a range of meanings > > > > 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 > > It's thanks to jboske that there is any question about what tu'o means Thanks be to jboske then, for at least it leads us to recognize SL for the rubbish you insist on trying to turn it into. > > > 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 > > Which governing principles are these, and where are they stated in baseline > form? Screw the baseline -- you have exterminated the last dregs of my respect for it. You stick to your dialect and I'll stick to mine. > >that tu'o does not mean mo'ezo'e > > I claim from the governing principle that the baseline documents de jure > define the language, that tu'o means what the cmavo list says it means, > which is fully consistent with CLL, just not with your interpretation > of logic > > >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 > > Which is where they are supposed to learn cmavo from - that is why there is > a cmavo list! > > > > 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 > > It is not erroneous. It is the baseline, and in fact until the recent > policy statement, it was primary for cmavo list definitions > > >or simply on the basis of an erroneous reading of CLL > > CLL does not address the question of what tu'o means except as an operand > in RPN, which is irrelevant. There is no relevant "erroneous reading" > possible > > > > 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 > > Deducible truths must be based on all assumptions, and CLL is not the sole > assumption to be considered > > Furthermore, deduction is not law in Lojban. (Induction at least is > relevant) > > > > 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 > > We seem to agree that the cmavo list definition is semantically > ambiguous. That is not against the rules in Lojban. Most of the words are > semantically ambiguous to some extent I don't know of any ambiguous Lojban word. That is, a word with two meanings such that a sentence can be true on a reading with one of the meanings and false on a reading with the other. > > > 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 > > Note that a change to vo'a has not been adopted either. The byfy is not > yet constituted, and there have been no change proposals much less actual > changes to the baseline > > >But if tu'o means mo'ezo'e then it can't mean mo'ezi'o, > > But it may mean something that includes both > > >since there are environments where both values would be sensical > > In which case the proper term is that tu'o is "vague", not ambiguous > > If there are such cases and IF it is determined that the different values > result in a critically different interpretation of the meaning, then you > have an argument for splitting the word into two. But those cases have not > been stated, and that argument has not been made > > > > >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 > > Which is the primary baseline document defining the cmavo, in error ONLY > when it is CONTRADICTED by CLL (and incomplete exemplification is not a > contradiction) > > > > 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 > > No, I am arguing that the vagueness in the cmavo list definition was > intentional. The words are there; we know what they mean, and we knew what > they meant when they were written. I proved by usage that the words in the > cmavo list that make the definition "vague" were not mere hunches, and that > actual usage had born out that aspect of the definition (as well as the CLL > one) and indeed the elliptical aspect had been dominant until jboske > discussions > > >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" > > zi'o joi 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) > > My understanding was always that zo'e included most uses of zi'o. That was > why I was opposed to zi'o being added > > >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" > > NO IT DOESN'T!!! > > There is not one word in CLL that is inconsistent with tu'o = mo'e zi'o a > zo'e, and probably not with several other possible definitions of tu'o If you read the examples and exposition on p450 as meaning that the sentence is true if tu'o is a null operand and true if tu'o is vague number, then that utterly perverts CLL. If you don't read it that way, then it is inconsistent with tu'o = 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 > > I am reiterating the baseline policy > > >CLL is being interpreted on the basis of what CLL says > > byfy is writing a dictionary, not CLL. It has a secondary job of correcting > "errata" in CLL. It does not have a job of "adding to the CLL > prescription" because the current prescription is not limited to CLL, and > byfy does not have a charter to add to CLL. It is writing a document which > will supplant some other documents that are part of the prescription in > addition to CLL > > > > > 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 > > The meaning in the ma'oste covers all usage including the CLL explanation, > except for that which has arisen from the ad hockery of jboske debates > (which some people have adopted, while others have rejected) > > > Something has therefore got to be broken > > jboske is broken. It started being taken as a means of railroading change > to the baseline through its "logic". This argument is probably the first > of many that will probably arise as people cite jboske arguments to > override the baseline I won't be citing jboske arguments to override the baseline. I am so disgusted by this exchange that unless I can be persuaded that you are what I believe is called a troll and so are grossly unrepresentative of SL, I don't want to have anything to do with it. > > > 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 > > "Incoherent" is in the eye of the beholder. You have now admitted the > plausibility of tu'o meaning mo'ezo'e a zi'o which you apparently had not > considered before. That definition inherently encompasses mo'ezi'o and > therefore encompasses the usages which you think CLL defines as > mo'ezi'o. Using mo'e zo'e a zi'o (or joi zi'o) the incoherency is > not evident > > > or incompatible with CLL > > Not in evidence > > lojbab --And.