Re: What the *%$@ does "nu" mean?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> The number 3 does not exist in the universe of discourse which is restricted
>> to the set of even numbers.
>
>What is a universe of discourse?

YOU are asking ME to define this?  Logicians and matrhematicians seem to have
a clear idea what it means, but I am not sufficiently competent at either
discipline to even try to define it in terms that you won't poke a zillion
holes in.

>> Yes.  li ci cu ka cimei
>> Indeed it seems practically definitional of a number that it be the sole
>> property of X-ness.
>
>In what sense are you *observing* li ci? I'm not claiming you
>can't *talk about* li ci, or say that it is a property of
>threesomes.

Why am I NOT observing li ci when I observe a threesome?

>> Now I can also observe concretes as well as abstractiuons.  The brain is a
>> pwerful device.
>
>You seem to be using "observe" to mean "x1 concludes that x2
>is the case on the basis of observing x3".
>
>If you hear a cough, a trombone and a rustle, are you hearing
>li ci?


No, but if my brain associates them as a threesome, then my brain is
observing li ci.  My brain can do things that my ears cannot.

>> >How can you look at a fact?
>>
>> (Well ,it works in English %^)
>> We can look at/observe/analyze/understand a relationship.  A relationship
>> can be factual.  In which case transitively we are looking at a fact.
>> I guess.
>
>You are mixing up metaphorical extensions of meaning from
>sensory to cognitive senses of "look at". Now that really is
>malglico.


In the case of individual senses like "hear"  I think we can separate
sensory from cognitive.  I do not think that we can separate the two once we get
 to the brain.

But I agree that thsi may be malglico.  hence my comment with smiley.

>> The brain undoubtedly makes inferences from data beofre we are aware that it
>> has done so.  This is a different sort of inference than the logical
>> inferences that we might make once we have accepted that the data is valid.
>
>True. But I still contend that what you see is the stimulus and
>not the inference. {mi viska lo cukta} means "there is a book
>and I see it". It doesn't mean "on the basis of visual stimulus]
>I infer that there is a book". (Though it would often be appropriate
>to say such a thing.)

You keep changing gismu on me.  I though we were working with zgana, which is
not tirna nor viska.

>> I admit to being confused as to how jei got broughjt into this - you asked m
>> about ni.  Since they are "defined" (to the extent that is true)
> independently,
>> I cannot understand howthe definitions COULD be contradictory.
>
>The definitions of {jei} and {ni} are independent, but they are
>both defined contradictorily, and their definitions are
>contradictory in the same way.

I'm lost.


What do they contradict?  Or do you mean self-contradictory?

>> I am never opinionless.  I may be clueless.  My opinion may be nonsense.
>> But I will indeed form an opinion, and then again, I will change it faced
>> with contradiction if need be.  I do not claim to be as logical as the
>> language tries to be, even if my Lojbanic name suggest that I am logically
>> clean %^).
>
>OK, though it might then be a good idea for you to disclaim
>authority rather more ostentatiously than you have been doing.

Why?  Everyone participating in this debate knows that Lojban Central
has no authority to override the refgrammar any more than anyone else
does.  I don't think I need to disclaim tjis to you in every message
do I?  My authoritynow resides solely in the extent to which I use the
language.

>> >I am looking for an answer at a level of sophistication sufficient
>> >to establish when nu is and isn't used properly.
>>
>> Given previous discussions, I may not be able to satisfy you.  And it is no
>> longer my job to do so %^).
>
>OK. I think we can conclude that noone really has a definition
>of nu that is consistent with usage and the general principles
>of Lojban (such as No Homonymy). So our next step should be
>to establish what the best definition of nu would be, and how
>usage should change to conform to it.

No.  That is a prescriptive attitude.  We are past the prescriptive phase.
We need to use the language, and let someone later sort out what nu means
based on that usage.  Discussion in English on what "should be" is no longer
binding.

I guess if you want to argue the definition in Lojban someone might be
able to follow it.  But likely not me.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.