[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
7On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> 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 As for Unique, I would say that this is equivalent to, or superseded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.
The examples you offered for Unique are better suited to Kind? (you wrote:
"the one and only broda"; all broda are treated as the same one broda
:*Blue* is my favourite colour, *Monday* is the first day of the week, *B*
is the second letter of the alphabet, I like *sherry*, *Sherry* is sweet,
*The platypus* lays eggs, *The Afghan* is a dangerous foe, Is *the pope*
catholic?")
Typical is the non-mathematical equivalent of the statistical mode, isn't
it? The most common type?
What does Prototype mean? Isn't that Stereotype?
> 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.)
Technically we should be able to use le tu'o or lo tu'o for substances.
But, historically, lei/loi was used, so a backwards-compatible solution
should branch substance off lei/loi.
> 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.
We can only find out by writing what we think is a decent proposal and
testing the reaction.
--
The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would
transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the
Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...