[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I feel I cannot, because there are certain traits of Lojban design that I hold to be definitional to the language, and therefore non-negotiable --- and held throughout the preceding round of this debate. An extensionalist understanding of {lo} as {da poi} is one such definition. I accept that Quine is old fashioned, and Montague is more in tune with natural language gadri (when Monty makes sense); and that in a real sense the intension is more basic than the extension. I also accept that Bob, when he fumbles for a reason to reject {lo} = {da poi}, is probably thinking intensions without realising it. I further accept that my past usage, and that of everyone else, pretty much, as treated intensions as {lo} without realising it, and that making {lo} intensional would make all that past usage legitimate, bring Lojban in line with natlangs, and make it easier to learn.
And it would no longer be Lojban as I understand. Which (to embarrass him into saying something about it :-1/2 ) is the Woldemarian extensionalism of CLL.
This is not a minor and welcome fix, as I believe a cmene fix would be. This is a reversal of any understanding we have of Lojban; it annuls its basic semantic underpinnings. Our usage may not be affected; but our understanding of the theory of Lojban is tipped over. And I cannot accept it.
Is this because I have a personal stake in having my own solution prevail? Perhaps, although my solution is yet to be articulated --- and if I continue to feel as I do now, may never. Am I letting my personal feelings exacerbate this? Probably: I've been defending And and Jorge's right to speak, apparently expecting in return a deference I have not proven I deserve.
But I do not recant the fact that Lojban has certain axioms; not everything is negotiable. I count extensionalism as such an axiom, and though I am reluctant to use my veto in general, on this, I feel compelled to. I will not give reformists everything, and I will not give them this; that is more change that I can justify to myself. If that's irrational, so be it; but rationality is not the only criterion we are working with --- if it were, we would accept all optimisations without question. The onus may still be on me to prove that a fully extensionalist system will work; but a fully intensionalist system, I repeat, is not Lojban as it is defined, *no matter what usage has done*. (I reiterate, to Jorge's use of my own usage against me, that on this issue, usage doesn't count for anything with me, the gadri system being so alien from English to begin with, and so poorly documented and understood.) And extensionalism is not a trivial detail of the definition of Lojban, but its cornerstone.
------------------=================================--------------------Dr Nick Nicholas; University of Melbourne, http://www.opoudjis.net nickn@hidden.email Dept. of French & Italian Studies
"The Orthodox Church lead the Greek nationalist movement in the island until 1977. Since then it has been in decline, confining itself mainly to the real estate market and homophobia." (Andrew Apostolou, MGSA-L)