[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I would like to rant back, if I may.
la nitcion cusku di'e
> A Lojban which contains {lo} = Kind is so incommensurable with CLL, and
> so manifestly against the entire spirit of the language (which is
> founded on Quine and not Montague), that its acceptance will force me
> to cut ties with the language.
1- It is true that some parts of CLL would need some adjustment. I
dispute the claim of incommensurability. The adjustments would
affect one or two paragraphs in a chapter or two. Not much more.
2- It is not against the spirit of the language. See for example
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9502/msg00113.html and tell me
if anyone had a clear idea of what exactly the spirit of {lo} was.
3- Statements like "its acceptance will force me to cut ties
with the language" are not conductive to consensus.
>I will not relearn {lo}, and I will not
> ask anyone else to; this is where I draw the line.
You won't need to relearn {lo}. In fact, your current true
understanding of {lo} will be vindicated and reflected better
in the prescription. For example:
{.i lo lorxu noi viska ra gi'e djica lenu cpacu le rectu
cu sanli gi'e zanru skicu le cipnrkorvo. ri lo xadbraxau je melbi}
will become correct. That "lo xadbraxau je melbi" is
"Mr xadbraxau je melbi", isn't it?
So you in fact use {lo} the way we want to define it. All the other
uses fit with Kind too, because the Kind use encompasses the
quantified use, but not vice versa.
Just as we are not forced to use tense when tense is not needed,
either because it is obvious, or because it is irrelevant, or
because it is inappropriate (as in atemporal relationships) then
we should not be forced to use quantification when it is not
needed. I believe the original intent was that {lo} be the least
marked gadri, with no implication of any quantifier. It got the
quantifier {su'o} because that _seemed_ to allow the most general
possible claims for {lo broda}, with no commitment as to number.
After all "at least one" allows for any number, right? And this
is quite true for simple claims like {lo broda cu brode}. In such
claims it makes little difference whether you take {lo broda} to
be Kind or {su'o broda}. But as soon as this term gets to interact
with other quantified terms and with negation, things get messy
for su'o but not for Kind. When su'o was chosen as default for {lo}
this was not fully and well understood.
You have come to accept that a Kind gadri is necessary. Maybe it
won't end up being bare {lo}, but I don't see the point of denying
that it be {lo} before even we have an alternative proposal to
compare with. (Well, we have the {lo'e} alternative which you
also dismiss outright, and the underspecified LAhE3 alternative,
which to me is extremely heavy for something so frequent and basic.
Without an actual form and examples of use, it is hard to compare
and examine.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com