[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 09:31 PM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
John and Jordan disagree about what {ro} should mean, not about which
philosophy determines their truths. Can we have metalinguistic statements
that tell us which set of word--meaning correspondences we are using
-- which dictionary the hearer should consult?
Why not?
If so, I suggest a cmavo in COI, "COI brod", where "brod" names the dictionary. But then people will want the official dictionary to list only one meaning, and John and Jordan will disagree about which should be listed for ro.
Approach 1There is only one meaning for ro, with existential import being a manifestation of the (whatever branch of philosophy applies - metaphysics, ontology, semantics, etc.). The dictionary would thus say that ro has existential import in an X context, doesn't have existential import in a Y context, and existential import implies Z in terms of added meanings. X and Y are markable; the default is not specified (and as with tense, optional)
Approach 2Split into two words. The one that gets ro is the one that is most likely to see usage. If this cannot be decided based on intuition, there may actually have been enough usage of a word as common as "ro" for usage to give an indication.
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