[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 01:23 AM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >Warning: I get really really really pissed off in this message
>
> Me too. Luckily my mailer ate half of it, so you only get half of
> my disdain
To preempt further ire, let me say how I see things. I had already
decided that I wanted to pursue Academic Lojban as well as Standard
Lojban, but Nick had persuaded me to maintain an interest in SL
and in the BF's work to extend the SL prescription and fix its
problems. But I can't possibly collaborate directly with you in
work on SL, for reasons that are probably too obvious to need
spelling out. Perhaps Nick can mediate and serve as the interface
between you plus others who reject a lojban that embraces jboske,
and me plus others who reject a lojban that rejects jboske.
Otherwise, we can have an amicable schism.
I won't bother replying to your arguments about tu'o. I keep on
getting seduced into thinking it is worthwhile to do so, and then
simply end up getting enraged, because the achilles heel of my
usual good temper is an ability to cope gracefully with
irrationality in the context of ostensibly rational discussion.
> >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
>
> We have differing ideas as to what is coherent. No one had any question
> about the coherence of the definition until you and Jorge tried to use it
> for something else. I have little sympathy when you set out to break
> things and actually succeed
Whereas from the jboske point of view, we are merely demonstrating
that it is broken, not actually breaking it. Demonstrating that it
is broken is a positive step, because we want a language that is
not broken. If we had the authority to fix it, then we would be happy
but you wouldn't. This is why we must have schism unless Nick can work
some magic somehow.
> >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
>
> Frankly I don't give a shit what has been discussed on jboske by 3% of the
> Lojban community, while the rest were doing their best to tune out
>
> >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 was not part of the consensus. Nora was not part. Robin and Jay were
> not part. I suspect that Nick was not part, depending on when this was
> pulled. Your consensuses have no binding effect on anyone.
I know. This is why I said "(A) or (B)". For virtually any question
about Lojban, either it has no indubitable prescribed answer, or it
has been discussed and resulted in consensus from those participating
in the discussion.
> No one paid
> attention to most of your discussions, and several of us generally rejected
> the basic assumptions of your reasoning so the reasoning proves
> nothing. As far as I am concerned, all of jboske (and jbioske arguments on
> the main list count as well) before Nick convenes the byfy constitute
> merely one possible argument which will have to be made from scratch,
> because none of us are going to be willing to read all that garbage - we
> weren't the first time, and it won't happen this time
Jboske wants to be able to settle linguistic issues through reasoned discussion
within a shared set of guiding principles. You want that
nothing is settled by such means. Schism will solve this problem. I
don't want to scream at you and insist that you subscribe to a
dialect of lojban compatible with jboske.
> >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
>
> Probably
[...]
> >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
>
> Actual usage is probably closer to the prescription than it is to
> jboske. In the case of tu'o I showed that usage matched precisely what the
> cmavo list says. It then becomes your job to prove this to be incoherent,
> not mine
The problem is that I can prove it to be incoherent to people who
accept jboske -- that Lojban is susceptible to rational discussion
within a set of guiding Loglan principles. But I cannot prove to
you that it is inconsistent, because you reject jboske. For any
argument I could possibly raise, you could always find a way of
demonstrating that prescription can be interpreted in such a way
the issue is not decidable without further prescription. So
either Nick can get through to you, or we work on different
dialects.
> >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
>
> I don't understand that paragraph
You saw people arguing about the use of a null operand as a quantifier.
You misinterpreted this as people arguing about whether the prescription
makes tu'o mean "null operand".
Because you don't understand jboske debates, you don't understand which
issues are subject to controversy among jboskeists and which issues
aren't. I know you don't care; I was just responding to your attempt
to cite previous jboske debate to prove that a certain issue had
been controversial.
> > 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
>
> The prescribed meaning of the word is the cmavo list definition. It is not
> ambiguous until you present an example where we can't tell from context
> which is intended.
A. {li tu'o va'a ny du li ci vu'u ny}
If tu'o means "mo'e zi'o" then A is false.
If tu'o means "mo'e zo'e" then A is true if zo'e is interpreted
as 3, and false otherwise.
If tu'o means "mo'e zo'e a zi'o" then A is true if zo'e is
interpreted as 3, and false otherwise.
B. {li tu'o va'a ny du li no vu'u ny}
If tu'o means "mo'e zi'o" then B is true.
If tu'o means "mo'e zo'e" then B is true if zo'e is interpreted
as 0, and false otherwise.
If tu'o means "mo'e zo'e a zi'o" then B is true.
> (And below you seem to admit that there aren't any
> ambiguous words in the list.)
There aren't any words that are ambiguous by intent. The presumption
that any truly ambiguous definition is inherently 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
>
> I have disdain for the assumption that CLL is the only prescription, and
> consider your argument two-faced because you are perfectly willing to throw
> out the CLL prescription when your argument requires it. Thus your
> claiming scriptural qualities to the document rings hollow to me
If you are saying that my work on AL invalidates my right to discuss
SL, then you are preaching schism. As part of the current pre-BF
work on interpreting SL fundamentistically, I was attempting to do
so, and found that it is impossible if you are part of the process.
> > > 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
>
> But no one wants to use what you are jboskeing. You are creating a work of
> art, perhaps an incarnation of your Livagian logical artlang. That isn't
> Lojban, which is a language that people will use
I have no problem with this. I don't want to do a McDonalds and
create worthless pap that strives to appeal to the popular palate.
And I don't want to interfere with you in your attempt to do that.
If Nick thinks he can rescue SL from the rubbish you would have
it be, and that I can help in that rescue, then I will try to
help him.
> > > 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
>
> I'm not
Of course. You think the status quo is hunkydory and because your
way of thinking represents the majority of uncommitted Lojbanists,
any excessively jboskological proposals by the BF will be vetoed
by the community.
> > > >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
>
> The basic principles of Lojban are the baseline, the baseline, the
> baseline. People have rejected the other possibility "founder intent" as
> having anything else to do with basic principles, so we are left with
> nothing but the baseline to argue from
Needless to say, I reject any dialect of Lojban based only on that
principle, though of course I affirm your right to pursue such
a dialect.
> > > >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
>
> And no one but Jorge will be able to understand it, as exemplified in the
> phone game. But maybe yuou don't care
I do care. If I didn't care about creating a living loglang that
has been created collaboratively I would drop Lojban like a hot
coal. But a Bob dialect is not a logical language -- that is,
it doesn't embody the principles that I think make a living
loglang worthwhile. And even a Nick-driven formalist but
fundie SL might be such a poor loglang that it is not worthwhile.
But at any rate, the desire to be understood does not override
other considerations. The medium of English satisfies my desire
to be understood far more than does Bob Lojban. My desire is to
be understood in a language superior to English in certain
key respects.
--And.