Re: deleting places

[Art Protin <protin@USL.COM>]

Robert J. Chassell quotes and comments:

> John Cowan says:
>
>     [Even if you elide] the x2, x4, and x5 places [of "klama"], ...it
>     is MEANINGFUL to talk of a destination, a route, and a means of
>     transport in this particular case (which I will call an >instance<
>     of the selbri "klama").  If there were no destination whatsoever,
>     "klama" would not be correct.
>
> I agree entirely.  This is fundamental to all the Loglans.  These are
> languages based on the notion of the predicate calculus.  All places
> are part of a meaning, even when the place is not filled overtly in an
> utterance.  More precisely, Loglan presumes that you cannot conceive
> of the meaning without all the places, any more than you can conceive
> of 2 + ... without adding the second place.  Sometimes, however, you
> don't overtly fill a place.

To which I say:
1)      The gismu klama is really inappropriate for this discussion
        of places because all travel has a destination regardless
        of whether it is known or by whom it is known.  (Ignorance
        of the destination of an orbit by anyone is no wheres near
        a proof of its non-existance.)
2)      Even if it were possible to have travel "without a destination",
        I reject that concept using rather "with no destination"
        which is still klama with the destination place filled by
        the "answer does not exist" value.

SOME ONE PLEASE  POST WHAT THE WORD IS TO USE FOR "answer does not
exist".

3)      If everyplace must have a non-null value than most multiplace
        gismu need corresponding gismu with fewer places.

4)      What about all the attachable places.  By the logic that every
        place is fundamental to the understanding of the concept
        that a gismu embodies, the attachment of another place once
        means either that the gismu embodies two concepts or that
        all uses of that gismu have that attached place.

5)      Given that lojban is to be a human language, defined by usage
        and described by our texts (as verses prescribed by them),
        I believe that the rigid place view will have to be abandoned.
        I believe that a property of teaching language by example
        is that the place structure will have to be somewhat looser
        and people will learn gismu initially as having minimal
        place structure.  The less commonly used places will be
        learned later as enhancements of the base concept.
        While this may violate the paradigm of predicate calculus,
        its either that or limit lojban to a second language, as
        mathematics is.