addendum on naysaying

[Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab>]

We discussed the proposal last night, and Sylvia's opinion was especially sought
as a Lojbanist who has already learned the language.  The response (Sylvia
speak up to disagree or add more) was ambivalent, but she hit upon the main
reason why I currently remain undecidedly negative.  She indicated that this
sounds like a change that would be proposed by those who are forever trying the
 fiddle with the language and make it a little better rather than those who
want the langauge to be completed, documented, and turned over to real users
who might then make their own changes, but in a more natural mode.

It was also clear that, though we attempted to make the negation paper
clear, the differences between contradictory and contrary negation are not
that well understood by Sylvia, and thus by extension probably by most
other Lojbanists who are learning/have learned the language.  If we add a
disticntion that people do not understand, we are more strongly obligated
to teach it so that everyone understands it.  As the language stands now,
people learn features individually, and the role of nai in each feature is
probably learned quite well in the process of learning that feature.  It is
only when you try to generalize nai over the whole language that the incon-
sistency appears, and the plausibility of useful change.

Another point raised was that there are few if any identified things to be
said in Lojban that cannot be clearly said with the langauge as it currently is.
It is already recognized that not everything theoretically sayable can be
carried in the tense system - it is a powerful subcomponent of the langauge,
but it is not a full language in itself (likewise attitudinals, which are evenn
more powerful).  Any complex tense that cannot be said without a nai/nei d
distinction can almost certainly said by breaking up the tense into multiple
tense phrases, or by breaking up the sentence into two sentences.  This is
indeed what happens in any language when complexity exceeds the resolving
power of the language.  Lojban has a higher resolving power than most languages.

On the other hand, Sylvia noted that one of the neat features of Lojban tenses
is their ability to be analytically stacked one atop the other, and the
current situation puts some theoretical limit on this.

I find Jim Carter's comment interesting by the way.  Since when, Jim, are
you willing to tolerate a structure in the language which does not have
a fully analyzed semantics? %^)

lojbab