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

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

Lojbab:
> >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.
>
> I believe that when mathematicians do proofs, they restrict the domains of
> their proofs to portions of mathematical space.  It is possible to define
> sets consisting of, for example only the even numbers, and then make
> all manner of deductions about that set and operations on that set.  My
> understanding is that this is what a universe of discourse means.  In human
> speech, the universe of discourse is usually either the real world or the
> in-mind world of the speaker, and hopefully the speaker marks the latter if
> he knows that it deviates relevantly from the real world.

I have no trouble with defining a set of even numbers, but find it
hard or impossible to imagine imagining that there are no odd
numbers.

> >> 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.
>
> I was talking  zgana and not ganse.
> I am not sure whether viska, tirna, etc are clear betweenactually sensory
> stimuli and what is perceived.  The sensory stimulus I am now receiving is
> light of certain frequencies from a CRT.  What I see are words on a screen.
>
> I think that the difference between these two is a significant a level of
> abstraction as the difference between concrete objects and abstract events.
> I will maintain that I see and viska words on a screen (but also light
> from a CRT), because my sensory appratus includes some amounyt of
> built in abstraction.

Again I think you're responding to the wrong point. While the
philopsophy of perception is interesting, the relevant point
remains the distinction between concrete and abstract entities.
Even if you believe that viska, or zgana, or whatever can have
an abstract percept sumti, the fact remains that any te sumti
that must be concrete cannot be a nu, if a nu is an event-type.

> >{jei} (i)  "is truth value of p" [some value on the T--F scale]
> >      (ii) "whether p is the case"
>
> I don't see the difference.  Any way of communicating ii is some mapping of
> (i)
>
> >{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.
>
> I thought indirect qyestions were marked by kau?

I trust Chris & Jorge's recent explanations have clarified this
for you.

> >There was a long thread on this a month or two ago, which I did
> >not participate in.
>
> And which like all  the rest petered out after much volume with no
> resolution and obviously just as much confusion among at least as
> many people as when we started.

I'm not sure that anyone except you remains confused.

The debate was resolved. It became clear that ni and jei have
contradictory definitions. Chris is probably right that we must
conclude that ni and jei are homonymous. Indeed, if usage is
going to define Lojban henceforth, then we can expect a great
deal more homonymy to become apparent as time goes by.

> Yet I have yet to see a Lojban statement using jei that I did not
> understand.

I don't see what understandability has got to do with it. If
I see that what you say is, taken literally, nonsense, but I
am sure you're trying to talk sense, then naturally I look
around to find the sense you are likeliest to be intending.
Or I may not even notice that what you say is nonsense, and may
immediately come up with a sensical interpretation.

> >> 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.
>
> Far be it for  me to comment on British politics, but I suspect that Mr.
> major did not have much authority in his last few weeks in office.
>
> In my case, I was neither elected by the populace nor appointed by the
> nolrai of Lojbanistan, and hence have considerable limits to my authority %^)
>
> Indeed, I suspect that these days, if Cowan and I disagree on matters
 Lojbanic,
> you might come to feel otherwise as to who has superior authority.  Indeed,
> if Nick were an active reader and spoke up, he would probably out-authorize
> me.  Nora and pc and Shoulson also do so in specific areas that they
 specialize
> in.

For simple mastery of the language, Jorge is certainly the
authority of authorities. But when it comes to saying what is and
is not Lojban, you are the leader. For example, you have recently
been emphatically and without hedges stating what Lojban is, and
what criteria will define it. And I feel that you - and pretty much
you alone - have the authority to do that.

> And when you talk about Montague semantics, I claim no authoirty at all.

If I talk about Montague Semantics I don't realize I'm doing so.

> >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.
>
> Lt me continue to be contrary then.  I maintain that I am quite consistent.
>
> I contend that the discussions we are having now are NOT established
> conventions.  That is why we are arguing.  That which is stated in the
> refgrammar is presription.  That which is stated inthe dictionary is
> prescription.  That which is to be stated in the textbook is prescription
> (though the authority of the latter will be considerably proscribed by the
> prior two works).

Without the ref grammar before me, I can't cite chapter and verse,
and moreover the refgrammar tends to be somewhat informal and
pedagogical than precise.

Anyway, there are certain established but possibly unwritten
conventions, such as the absence of homonymy in Lojban. Noone
has been able to demonstrate that there is any single definition
of nu that is compatible with the refgram and with established
usage. Something has to give.

> Stuff that appeared in Lojban text prior to the baseline, and which is not
> contradicted by the baseline has some authoirty as bona fide usage of the
> language.  Likewise things we said in non-baselined documents whihc are
> not contradicted by thebaseline documenbts serve as indications of intent
> and therefore have limited prescriptive force.
>
> ALL postbaseline discussions purporting to clarify and/or interpret the
> baseline documents, above and beyond trivialities like typo corrections if
> some are found necessary are de jure nonprescriptive.

I don't understand what "de jure" means here.

> My arguments with
> Ashley are based to a limited extent on baseline documents, andto a less
> liited extent on pre-baseline statements of intent.  They have less force than
> the baseline documents, but some force as statements of intent,

This is one source of your authority: since it was your intent,
you can made statements of it.

> and some
> force as statements of my policy as a Lojban speaker/listener (but the latter
> is not prescriptive).  We have set no policy on what the riole of myself and
> anyone else who serves as an LLG editor of Lojban text will have as a
> prescriptive force (i.e. what kinds of errors we can/will reject) but I hope
> my role will be no greater than any other person who copuld speak the language
> as well as me.

How do you judge how well someone can speak L?

> I am perhaps a little harsher towards Ashley because, whereas you have
> written texts in the language and more or less successfully communicated in
> the language, you have some credibility as a Lojban speaker.

You repeatedly apply this criterion. It seems to be little more
than some kind of initiation rite; a sign of insiderhood.
The quality of my writing about Lojban has not been improved by my
writing in Lojban, and the sensible things Ashley has been saying
are not any the less sensible for his not having posted
texts in Lojban. Indeed, I think it is far more the case the
quality of one's Lojban is improved by following these in-English
debates on the list.

Anyway, it's ages since I wrote in Lojban. I don't have time to
do it to a worthwhile standard. I don't even have time to read
it: in most lines of Lojban text there is usually at least one
word I don't know, and even if I got myself organized and
brought my Lojban papers in to my office I wouldn't have the
time to do all the looking up.

> So far as I know
> Ashley is still arguing from a theoretical standpoint and not as an actual
> user of the language.  I'm not that much interested intheory right now- I want
> to make the language WORK, and let the theory explain what happens later.

I want to make the language WORK too. We disagree about what counts
as the language, and what counts as working.

> And some usages, in myopinion simply will not work.  Others, like the ones
> you and Jorge argue, might or might not work, but I cannot honestly say that
> I am worried to much about loigical consistency in usages that have not yet
> been debated.  If people use things and they are misunderstood, then someone
> will correct them.  If usages are understood but the logic is faulty under
 some
> assumptions, then the definitions and the assumptions will evolve to match
 reality.

I agree. There will be a mismatch between the prescription and
actual usage, and for some reason you feel that to be a success.

> I am quite sure that the evolving reality will still be a major order of
> magnitude MORE logical than any natlang,

How can that be gauged?

> but the fact that large percentages
> of the community have no training in logic and probably cannot even follow
> the discussions in the refgrammar, much less your arcanities of Montague
> semantics and lambda calculus, etc.,

they are "my arcanities" only in that I understand neither.

> means that those discussions will not
> be heeded by most users unless you and JHorge reach an agreement and then
> simply swamp out lesser usages by sheer volume of your good examples %^).

No, no: that's not how it works. Take LE/LO. Before we began debating
that, there was general confusion about it. Now most people have
a fair idea of the difference. What works is to reach a consensus
through debate. In addition, one can also do a bit of usage
vigilantism. But trying to influence others by the example of
one's own usage is, I have observed, the very least effective
method. This is borne out by your own practise, too.

> THAT is the kind of usage-based prescription I want to see.  Jorge has gained
> much of his clout even in the face of my disagreement with his theories,
> by simply using the language. Just as Nick did before him.

I'm not sure what clout you mean, though I have observed that you
rate people as Lojbanists by how much Lojban text they've written.
His views sway me because they're so sound, and I trust him because
he knows and understands Lojban better than anyone else does, as far
as I can tell.

> >If it helps, we could put GLI or JBO in subject lines.
>
> WE've tried the codes before, and they never work. The main problem I
> see now is that the debates are crowding out other discussion because key
> people who might write in Lojban (e.g. Jorge) are writing in highly technical
> English, and a lot of others who might TRY to write in Lojban are trying
> merely to keep up with what the others are saying rather than trying to use it
> themselves.

That's quite healthy. Anyway, one doesn't need to keep up with
everything. If one doesn't read a thread, one can always ask
what the upshot was.

--And