[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 11:54 PM 1/10/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > Upon reflection, a "this is tautological" marker should be an evidential > > > UI. se'o might work; any sentient being should be expected to be able to > > > process tautologies > > > >No objections to that, but I object to having to be more verbose in > >order to indicate that I'm working with an ontology that is in some > >ways simpler than the one Lojban forces on me > > It seems to me that we might do best, if dealing with a different ontology > that requires it, to specify that the quantifiers and gadri might have > subtly different semantics under certain ontologies. We have precedent for > this in having ways to specify operator precedence that differs from the > standard. Why not use metalinguistics to specify an unusual ontology? > Since I doubt that the differences matter most of the time, choose things > so as to cause minimum effect by a change, then switch ontologies > metalinguistically, thereby changing the semantics along with it, when it > is necessary to use the differing ontology in a discussion > > That way we don't have to be committed to only one ontology with others > being a schismatic Lojban If SL grammar actually embodies a different ontology from the one I want to express (-- it's not yet clear whether this is actually the case) then this metalinguistic thing would have to indicate that a nonstandard grammar is in operation. And unless that alternative grammar is also part of the prescription, then we're back to different dialects. --And.