[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] Digest Number 196
On Monday, Jun 2, 2003, at 23:43 Australia/Melbourne, jboske@yahoogroups.com wrote:
The more time I spend fighting fires, people, the less time I get to document usage of mo'i... 


Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:58:35 +0100
   From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
Subject: RE: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) 

Jordan:



It makes your conservatism seem less kneejerk & unconsidered than
other people's.
I know what you mean, And (you explain it further down), but this is an unfair characterisation. 


In one sense, perhaps.  In another sense it doesn't, since I want
to have a language that is both stable and more formal than natural
languages.  Failing on either count fails the whole thing


Jordan, you are officially on my team. Thank you.


That's not how the labels are applied! The labels pertain to one's
attitude to change (in the prescribed/baseline element of the
language). It is somewhat orthogonal to the formalist vs naturalist/organicist 
dichotomy. Each of the four categories
defined by these two dichotomies contain some members of the Lojban
community.


Crucial insight by Jorge on the wiki.


But the return of Nick has I think driven the community
as a whole in conservative formalist direction, whereas is was
formerly more naturalist.
And is perceptive as usual, and my opinions on the preceding naturalist direction, as expressed by Bob, are well known. While I have the BPFK gig, that is the direction I'm steering it in.
Avowedly, it was in order to accommodate both constituencies in Lojban. Now it is not impossible that down the track And will leave Lojban for LoCCan3, and take others with him; neither he or I are calling for it, but it can happen. But I am no longer primarily concerned with accommodating reformists, as an end in itself. It's for the good and welcome if it does help the two (or four) camps stay in the language, but that's not my primary aim. I am committed to bolstering the formal aspect of Lojban, *because it is the right thing for the language*.
In that regard, the critiques from the reformist side are essential, and I continue to be grateful for them. They will not get everything they want (as And has said); they will probably not even get most of what they want. But they are helping to make Lojban better to the extent we can allow it to be, at this late stage. And this is an aim, I believe, that still has the community's support, whatever the predilections of the factions involved. 


Message: 2
   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Invent Yourself <xod@hidden.email>
Subject: Re: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) 

On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:



However, to fit with the definition of things like lo, that just
doesn't make sense.  {da poi cinri zo'u mi nitcu da} cannot be
consistently taken to not imply existence of the da---that's the
whole definition of da.  So it extends to lo based on rules in
chapter 16.  Le follows just as a rational extension, since it
describes something which exists (if you take le broda as da voi
broda, for example).
The situation with le is less clear (though it should become clearer). Note, however, that under propositionalism, da is not taken as being in the outermost prenex, so it has no existential claim outside the intension. Making {lo} have the same scoping inside an intension would make a lot of sense, and would save our bacon.
Somehow I think John and Bob looked at "lo broda" and decided that it was very much like "da poi broda", not necessarily committing themselves to 
each and every logical consequence of the equation. They are free to
contradict me, of course. Or perhaps only the "da voi broda" reading is problematic. It is radical to assert that le makes an existence claim. 

Chapter 16 commits to it.  It is a baseline change to change it.


This is so....
You're assuming that the baseline includes all the logical consequences of 
its premises. I say there probably are logical contradictions floating
around there. In any case, I would like to see lojbab and John say
expressly that they are willing to accept every leselnibli of the equation 
of "lo broda = da poi broda".
... if there are inconsistencies, then we have brokenness, and brokenness (and only brokenness, he says ruefully) justifies baseline change. (Oh, you say as much below. Cool.)
You seem to be saying that we need an entirely new gadri to avoid making 
existence claims everywhere. If that's what you believe, it's probably
time to check your premises, because I think you are alone in that
interpretation, although you cannot be blamed for misunderstanding the
gadri!
xod, I know you've never accepted my explication of intensions, and needing a doctor, but the case for a new gadri (or something) has been made expressly for that reason: it was And's Unique. John's modification was that the Unique need not always exist, but... I'd rather not get back into that yet. 


Message: 3
   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:01:24 -0500
   From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@hidden.email>
Subject: Re: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) 

The issue you're claiming is simply about resistence to change is
actually about the extent to which one values actually having people
*speak* the language, which requires that it be somewhat stable.
My view being that having a "perfect" language is useless if no one
has a chance to speak it.  But the naturalism/formalism issue is
related to that: it isn't orthogonal (since naturalism is inherently
anti-baseline, and
pro-yetanotherstupidIALstyleconlangwithnothinguniqueorinteresting, i.e.
anti-thewholepurposeofthelanguage, and formalism inherently requires
a language proscription which is non-negotiable (though a formalist
may disagree about what exactly should constitute that proscription
as compared to the current proscription)).


(prescription, btw. proscription is banning.)
There's different prescriptions being mixed up here though. Bob's 5-year prescription is entertained as being enough to get Lojban going, and turning into a real language (which I too feel would become yetanother-blah-blah-blah). An abiding prescription, *possibly* with future incremental additions (and by 'incremental' I mean 'backward-compatible'), would make Standard Lojban a self-standing formal entity, separate from what people might actually speak. And the Craig and Jorge takes on revisionism, as you recognise, are different.
On the flamewar you're starting with xod, permit me to stay out of it. I may not like the SW approach to Lojban either, but as Rexfelis, I'm not going to deny that it's a sizeable constituency of the language, which must also be satisfied. 


Message: 5
   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:33:53 +0100
   From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
Subject: RE: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) 


Anyway, this aside, there seems to me to be a marked discrepancy
between the numbers of people who have an interest in Lojban --
even quite an active interest -- and the much smaller number of
people who delve into its formal aspects. I don't really
comprehend why the many members of the larger group who don't
belong to the smaller are so interested in Lojban, though their
interest is very real and not at all superficial.
This is a valid point, and one that has come up in past flamewars: first, to Bob, "why a logical language if you're not interested in logic", and then, on jboske, "if the Great Unwashed don't want to know about logic, why do they get to decide the language design?"
Let me relay a comment Robin.CA made to me while I was at his place. As you know, Robin vehemently refuses to join this list. After repeating this to me with his customary vehemence, he added something like: "I want to be clear: I'm glad someone is working on these problems. I just don't want it to be me."
And this I think is the point. The Great Unwashed(tm) want a logical language, same as us, but can't or won't follow the interminable argling. *Which is perfectly OK*. We, the Logicians, can explicate the logic to them, can attempt to bolster the logic within the confines of language stability, and can help deliver that to them. As long as we don't talk over their heads, and exercise due care, we have their support. Even if they flame us whenever these issues come up on the main list. Robin's repeated this position several times this year, and I respect it. 


Message: 6
   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:46:42 -0500
   From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@hidden.email>
Subject: Sapir-Whorf sucks, and other nonjboske-ish things (was Re: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi))) 

I think lojbab is a centrist on the naturalist/formalist scale.  He
just calls himself a naturalist.  (cf. his constant need to re-explain
his prefered meaning of "let usage decide" to xorxes, kraig and
xod, et all).
Yet another keen insight. :-) But I think the "five years then real evolution" stance is still naturalist rather than not. 


Well, they definitely disagree on what should be in it.  The formalist
view requires that it be definitely proscriptive, if that's what
you're talking about with frozenness.

And the baseline is currently unfrozen, I remind you, but it is
still proscriptive.
Yet another crucial point. Jorgean revisionism wouldn't be laissez faire, I take it; Jorge thinks the prescription is wrong, and should be (or should have been) changed where it is wrong. Jorge, is that accurate?
I have of course said similar things (albeit a little less vehemently). 
But the founding intent of Lojban was to complete the Loglan project,
and the original purpose of the Loglan project was ostensibly to test
SW. So you're saying that Lojban should alter its avowed goals --
that is, change what it says its goals are.


Obviously what I am saying is that lojban should alter (remove)
this *particular* so-called "goal".
This could get brutal, and the members' meeting will already be brutal enough with my (filtered) suggestion that the Bylaws speak explicitly about Lojban, rather than logical languages in general. But I think this a non-issue: the design principles of Lojban that the BPFK is supposed to uphold are formalist and conservative; SW does not figure as an aim in itself for the fixes to the current design. Of course, I will not reject an SW-compatibly exotic solution merely because it is so; but the fixing is to do with issues of logic, unambiguity, and explicitness. 


I also think anyone interested in lojban should read some books on
predicate logic, and don't buy the common rhetoric that you "shouldn't
have to" do that just to understand features of the language.
Again: thank you. That's my take too. Though as And rightly says, there's nothing wrong about learning about logic through Lojban.
And if and when I write Lojban for Intermediates (which I think will be largely taken up with explaining gadri), I'm going to be talking about logic *and* Montague, alongside Lojban. Lojban will not end up doing things the way Monty does; but I do think Lojbanists should know what Montagovians are up to. Sidebar-fashion, but still. 


Message: 10
   Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:24:24 -0400
   From: John Cowan <cowan@hidden.email>
Subject: Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi 

Jordan DeLong scripsit:


More pointedly, you believe that {da ca'a nu la liz. brito turni
.iju la liz. brito turni}, correct?


Yes.
I'm with Jordan/And that this should be du'u right now; this is a matter that the BPFK (or the five hardcore members who don't run away on hearing the issue) will have to settle. 


Message: 15
   Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:12:07 -0400
   From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@hidden.email>
Subject: Re: RE: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi))
Everything I've ever said negative about Jorge's (and others') deviations 
from the baseline would have to be withdrawn, if they occurred after 5
years of everyone's best efforts at baseline compliance.
Which is not my vision of an enduring Standard Lojban, as I've said, independent of what direction the Organic/Colloquial variant takes. 


Message: 16
   Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:15:02 -0400
   From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@hidden.email>
Subject: Re: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi)) 

At 07:02 PM 6/1/03 -0400, John Cowan wrote:

Invent Yourself scripsit:
You're assuming that the baseline includes all the logical consequences of its premises. I say there probably are logical contradictions floating 
around there. In any case, I would like to see lojbab and John say
expressly that they are willing to accept every leselnibli of the equation 
of "lo broda = da poi broda".


I believe it.


Whereas I rejected that equation in 1994, and still do.  I just decided
that it wasn't worth further argument.
And John wrote the baseline on this. So your refusal to accept it is out of baseline bounds. (Live by the sword, die by the sword. :-) 


Message: 17
   Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:35:11 -0400
   From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@hidden.email>
Subject: RE: Sapir-Whorf sucks, and other nonjboske-ish things (was Re: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re: "x1 is a Y for doing x2" (was: RE: Re: antiblotation(was: RE: taksi))) 

I contend that the baseline remains frozen.
The whole discussion that brought the BPFK started because I said that if the baseline remains frozen, we could never author a dictionary. The question as to whether it is frozen right now or will be unfrozen in a year, for votes en masse, is different, though. 


This is one reason that I have
argued (and did so again tonight on the Board list) that the byfy should 
not be incrementally changing the language as issues come up for
discussion. The job of byfy is NOT to change the baseline but to complete the definition of the baseline. As part of that completion, we've agreed that it will be necessary to make some changes. I think that we should be defining everything that can be defined before considering any resolutions of conflicts, and we should have documented all resolutions of conflicts 
before we consider any baseline changes.
Well. I disagree that everything needs to be documented and addressed before decisions can be taken; there are parts of the language, such as lerfu, that are reasonably self-contained. As I've said on the board, you should be publishing your concerns to phpbb; we may or may not end up delaying votes, but my understanding is that, vote or no, the bpfk's work does not become official until ratified by the membership; and until that's happened, it will certainly be useful to exploit things already voted on and decided to make further decisions.
byfy is NOT intended to be a vehicle for continuous incremental changes to the baseline, and any attempt to make it so faces one implacable veto from 
this member.
BPFK is intended by me as one fell swoop consideration of *everything*, within the bounds set by backward compatibility and the design goals of the language. I trust the vote and the guidelines. As I've said to you with respect to the jbovlaste, your implacability is premature.
1:15 am. I'm going back to finishing my paper on Dodecanesian interrogatives; mo'i will have to wait for another day...
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == 
Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the
podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders
began to shake, and He wept.
[http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html]

Dr  Nick Nicholas. nickn@hidden.email   http://www.opoudjis.net