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

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> >> 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.

O well. I'll draw a blank then. Do logicians and mathematicians
have a clear idea that there can be a universe of discourse
restricted to the set of even numbers? -- It's not an important
point, but for me it would be an educational one.

> >> 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?

For the reason I gave later in the message.

> >> 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.

This debate is a red-herring. What is really pertinent is not
the meaning of "observe" but rather the difference between
abstract and concrete entities. One difference between them is
that only concrete entities can serve as sensory stimuli.

> >> 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.

No. I never mentioned zgana. But see above, anyway.

> >> 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?

Each word has two different definitions.

{jei} (i)  "is truth value of p" [some value on the T--F scale]
      (ii) "whether p is the case"
{ni}  (i)  "is the amount to which p is the case" (?) [some kind
              of quasi numerical thing]
      (ii) "how much p is the case"

In each case, (i) is a kind of value or numerical thingy, and
(ii) is an indirect question.

There was a long thread on this a month or two ago, which I did
not participate in.

> >> 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.

Noone has advocated overriding the refgrammar. Overriding the
refgrammar is of no relevance to this debate (unless example
sentences in the refgrammar count as canonical usage).

> 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 can't help thinking of you as Prime Minister of Lojbanistan.

> >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.

I address this in another post.

But I am staggered by the contradictory positions you take in
different threads. On the one hand you are saying to Ashley
that there is an ongoing prescription (or "non-binding social
pressure") that established conventions of Lojban be observed
in usage, and when I say the same thing to you you then say the
opposite.

> Discussion in English on what "should be" is no longer
> binding.

So what if it is no longer binding. "Recommended" is sufficient.

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

It follows from what you've said that you think the only relevant
messages on this list apart from announcements would be
texts written in Lojban. But you presume no authority. So it
should be quite easy therefore for you to check whether messages
are in Lojban or not and just delete the ones that aren't.

If it helps, we could put GLI or JBO in subject lines.

--And