[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Arnt:
> > Author : And
> > URL : http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144#144
> > Subject : what it takes to be a UI: {kau}
>
> I'm following Nick's advice and replying here, instead of in BPFK
>
> > > I do not think that NAI should not be moved to selma'o UI
> > >
> > > These are some of the reasons why:
> > >
> > > According to the Fregean principle of compositionality, doing this
> > > would require us to define some kind of semantic content that is
> > > independent of context, AND a rule that can combine nai with the word
> > > or phrase that is modified, UI-style. I don't think anyone here knows
> > > what kind of semantic content that would be, in any more detail than
> > > "the modified word/phrase is negated somehow"
> >
> > It's a good principle, but are we going to apply it to existing members
> > of UI and remove them from UI if they fail the test? {kau} would be a
> > prime candidate
>
> In a perfect world, yes
>
> But, if we were to try to do everything The Right Way, we wouldn't have a
> finished language until 3500, as someone said on the BPFK. For now, I'm
> content with not introducing *more* intractability to formal semantics in
> the language
Fair enough. This contrasts with principles such as unambiguity that
are inviolable & don't have to wait until the world is perfect in 3500.
If a principle is deemed violable in this imperfect world, then I
think we should not allow it much weight in making our BF decisions.
In the case of the "move NAI to UI debate", on which I am pretty
neutral, this means that if the BF isn't going to tidy up the
existing selmaho membership then the argument that nai wouldn't
be a proper member of UI should not be accorded much weight.
--And.