[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 05:39 PM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > 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
>
> What are the guiding principles? I don't sense that there is a single set
The shared set is the overlap between our personal sets. It is substantial
enough for us to have found discussion with one another profitable. I'm
too busy to try to articulate the principles explicitly, and I don't
think my effort to do so would be valuable enough to you for it to
justify the cost in my time.
> > > >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"
>
> I see people using tu'o as a quantifier, and the usages are not
> self-consistent (as Nick noted with his 3 varieties of tu'o) and are not
> consistent with tu'o as operand and tu'o as pure number
Nick didn't show that they were inconsistent. He showed that they were
distinct. Or at least tried to.
> >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 problem is that the jboske debate led to usage in the non-jboske
> community by you and Jorge, which was then emulated by a few others who
> probably think Jorge's example was correct. So if later jboske debate
> finds that tu'odu'u is incorrect, it will not be evident in usage, where
> 90% of the tu'o usage is tu'odu'u. The natural usage that was evolving
> from the ma'oste, was shunted in a new contradictory direction by an
> analysis that may have been faulty. This makes me dislike analysis as an
> influence on usage until usage is strong enough to resist analysis that may
> be faulty. (e.g. the way English usage usually resists the bastardizations
> imposed by prescriptivists who see a system that isn't really part of the
> language)
Usage uninformed by jboske is much more faulty by jboske standards
than usage informed by jboske.
What you are describing is essentially your wish that Lojban be
Organic Lojban, and naturally the greater the influence of jboske,
the more your wishes are frustrated. From my point of view, of
course, if there is to be just one dialect of Lojban then Lojban
will be more healthy the more influence over it that jboske has
and the less influence that you have. As I said in a previous
message, each of us thinks the other is set to ruin the Lojban
project.
> > > > 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
>
> If A is true if zo'e is interpreted as "3", then why do we want anything else?
>
> zo'e means "some value that makes the sentence true"
Surely not! Else every sentence with an ellipsis would be true by
definition!
> zi'o is appropriate
> if no value makes sense at all as in Cowan's example of an
> untranslatable joke
That's not really what zi'o means, but I don't want to get into
a discussion about this now. I'm not sure whether you know what
it means and just described it poorly: you said that zi'o catra
is meaningless to you, which isn't a good sign.
> > > > 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
>
> No I am saying that. I am arguing that to argue that CLL is scriptural
> over the cmavo list, requires that it is always scriptural. You (seem to)
> want it to be scriptural over the cmavo list, but not over independent
> analysis
Okay. But your argument is bollocks. The primacy of CLL is a matter
of LLG policy (or maybe it was articulated by Nick on behalf of BF
that was widely endorsed), and you implicitly support it by acknowledging
that the ma'oste is ill-done in parts and should not have been
baselined. So if I am talking about SL then I talk about what I understand
is LLG policy on the definition of SL.
I have no desires one way or the other about whether LLG policy is that
CLL is scriptural over ma'oste. But my understanding of current policy is
that it is.
> >But at any rate, the desire to be understood does not override
> >other considerations
>
> This baffles me. A language that is not understood is not a language
I disagree, but won't discuss that. My point is, since I am already
adequately understood in English, I have no desire to additionally
be understood in a crappy language. I all Lojbanists thought like
you do (on linguistic matters), I would have been long gone; I'd
never have stuck around in the first place.
--And.