Re: still on nu & fasnu...

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

>Of course, if "fasnu" means an actual event, then what I oroginally
>said was correct, and {lo nu broda cu fasnu} is false.


Which it cannot be since that is the definition of fasnu and nu (both).
This is an echo of  ckaji/ka and klani/ni

However, since I am totally lost in this stuff about events and types and
instantitions thereoof, I will give up and return to the perhaps
contradictory statements that the refgram is baselined and also that
x1 of fasnu is a nu-event (which is partof the baselined gismu list).

I am similarly begging out of your zo quote stuff, but my usage will
likely continue be that mi bacru/cusku zo .arg.  and if I say it twice,
I am likely to have no qualms about re zo .arg.  not that I will necessarily
say this myself.

Your discussion has simply gotten to arcane and out of touch with human
communication for me.  I am not used to even trying to be rigorous about
the distinction between a word and its manifestation and this affects
both zo and li ci.  You are not even managing to convince me that the
discussion is important, much less that there is something meaningful being
said.

>> I make no sense. Your reactions suggest that we are close to
>> getting back to the ancient discussion about needing lo tanxe that
>> led to enormous largely pointless volume 2 years ago (indeed it was
>> 2 years ago Thanksgiving that we had something like 200 postings in
>> a single day on the list or some similar nonsense).
>
>I don't think it was pointless. No conclusions were reached, but
>now we come to it again, I feel that more progress is being made
>and that red-herrings are more easily spottable.

I and others dropped out of the last one because it simply is not what we
want to do with the language.  I tried to distil conclusions from the
last round primarily because I needed to be sure that anything significant
made it into the baseline book.  That is no longer in question.

>I realize that to many these discussions are arcane, pedantic and
>pointless.

I am beginning to feel that all of them are, until we get more usage.

>However, I don't see how Lojban can fulfil its claim
>to be what it says it is (logical, consistent with design principles,
>etc.), if we don't have these discussions to ensure that it does
>fulfil its claim.

That argument worked before we declared the baseline.  Now by dictum the
language prescription is done, and the language is what it is.  Until we
get 5 years of usage history, I will question whether we have any idea
whether Lojban is or is not fulfilling anything.

>It's not surprising that in dealing with tricky problems, and
>with pc the only professional logician among us, we end up
>going round the houses somewhat.

And pc's silence tells me quite clearly that HE doesn't think the issue is
important (and/or decidable).  I think in the future when we start
ducking into logic, I will simply defer to him.  I after all am the person
who got a "D" in a logic class that could not be failed (it was a mastery
 learning course, and I was on an incomplete until I finished enough to get a
 "D"
and thereby pass and graduate, si8nce it was my last required course).

lojbab