[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > Xod (offlist):
> > > I am having trouble remembering what the competing meanings for lo'e
were.
> >
> > By the time the debates ended, & according to my understanding at that
> > point:
> >
> > 1. Something very much like CLL's typicality gadri. This seemed to me
> > neither essential nor parrticularly useful, but did (after a number of
> > further clarifications from Nick about how he thought it should work)
> > seem logically coherent.
> >
> > 2. The Kind gadri. The only reason for assigning this to {lo'e} was
> > prior usage (xorxes's), and simply assigning Kind to {lo'e} doesn't
> > of itself allow us to express everything we wanted it to. (More details
> > when we reopen the subject properly.)
>
> Does Kind = Mister? Where does Unique fit into this, is that a 3rd or 4th
> category?
Kind = "Mister", yes, but I can't vouch for that being everybody's
understanding, and "Mister" has in the past been used for Substance, so
we need to tread cautiously if trying to use 'Mister' as a technicalish
term. As for Unique, I would say that this is equivalent to, or superseded
by, Kind.
Regarding the things we need gadri to express (in 'gadri rows'), I think
we need just Collective and Kind (alongside Quantified).
We might also need Substance if we decide that brivla don't encode the
countability of their own sumti places. (E.g. if x1 of valsi is neutral
between "is a single word" and "is a single amount of wordage", then we'd
need to distinguish between these by means of gadri. But I am opposed to
using gadri for this.)
In other words, it's not that we need a really complicated gadri system;
it's that the simple gadri system that would suffice bears little
resemblance
to the current system. The complexity comes in bridging the gap between the
two systems.
> What signals the opening of proper debate? I was only waiting for the
> member's meeting and jboselsla to end.
We can reopen the debate now, but unless we have some idea of what the
majority of Lojbanists will and won't accept, I don't see the point. If
we had license to simply throw away the current system and create a
new one, then there'd be no problem. But we don't have such a license
and I have no idea what is and isn't acceptable to the community.
--And.