Re: reply to And #3

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

Lojbab:
> Re:  still on nu & fasnu...
>
> >> Which it cannot be since that is the definition of fasnu and nu (both).
> >> This is an echo of  ckaji/ka and klani/ni
> >
> >If by definition {lo nu broda cu fasnu} must be true, that places
> >a constraint on the possible meaning of nu and fasnu. For example,
> >it means either that fasnu does not mean "a happening" or that
> >"nu" does not mean "an event-type".
> >We ought to check whether you are correctly reporting the content
> >of the refgrammar, but I assume you are.
>
> I was reporting the content of the gismu list.

In what way does it sat that {lo nu broda cu fasnu} must be
true?

> As you are often wont to
> say, the refgram is often vague on matters of semantics.

Yes.

> But then it is
> a book about syntax rather more than it is about semantics.

Not the version I read. In fact there was next to nothing on
syntax. It was mostly on lexis and semantics.

> John made
> it faiurly clear that many if not most questions about semantics had not
> been even discussed much less answered in the Book.

True. It was either that or postpone publication for another
decade or two.

> >> 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.
> >
> >It is somewhat hypocritical of you to fail to base your usage on
> >the avowed principles of Lojban, after you have in the past
> >castigated me for being willfully deviant.
>
> I castigated you, as it were, for being willfully deviant against the
> stated conventions.  But here we are not talking about stated
> conventions.  You are trying to take something glossed over in the
> refgram (if it were not glossed over, you would simply need to quote me
> chapter and verse, and there would be no debate, would there?) and infer
> meaning from it.  I am not sure that we want to use the refgrammar in
> this way - to take it in the matter of the American Constitution and
> deduce and elaborate an immense structure of "common law" conventions in
> advance of usage that will then be intended to govern such usage (The
> Constitution is of course on the other hand left vague, with the
> American Supreme Court ruling on its meaning after actual usage has
> elaborated an issue - and then it tries to avoid overspecifying what the
> vagueness really means.)  I am also reminded of Chalker's "Dancing Gods"
> series of books, where an admittedly incomplete set of books of rules
> was supposed to be the sole design specification for a universe, with
> the obvious flaws that result from such an attempt being the basis for
> all manner of weirdness as people and creatures try to wind their way
> through the cracks in the rules.

I agree that the refgram should not be treated this way. But what,
then, do we do in cases where it is unclear? All we can do is
make our usage choices arbitrarily, or do as we have been doing,
and debate what is the most lojbanic solution.

> >If the principles and basic conventions governing the
> >Lojban speech community are already in place,
>
> I'd like to think so.

I look forward to discovering what they are...

> >and we are trying
> >to build a community that actually conforms to those principles
> >and conventions, then we need some kind of "usage police".
>
> Why? can we not merely use the same principles used by natlangs and let
> usage police itself (and that of the Internet and let Users police
> Themselves).

Because, for ffffffffffffffffff*%@'s sake, natlangs evolve their
own conventions. Noone sat down and said: now let's try and
create an English-speaking community where speech follows
conventions X, Y, Z.

If there's no usage police then there's no force to keep
usage in conformity with the prescribed conventions.

> pc has said that while many of the basics of logic have been well
> agreed-upon, each school of logic has its own nuances and elaborations
> which conflict with each other.  I get the feeling that you are trying
> to have us commit to a whole set of such nuances and elaborations as to
> the basics that we are simply not ready for, and will likely not be
> ready for until we have substantial mastery of the basics that we have.

I'm not necessarily trying to get you to commit to a set of
nuances and elaborations. I'm trying to get you to face up to
the existence of these "problem areas", and ensure that the
Lojban method of getting round them is not in conflict with
the more clearly-thought-out parts.

If you are saying that we can't engage in these debates until
more people know sufficient logic, then you may be right, but
we might as well try to do our best.

If you are saying that we can't engage in these debates until
more people know more Lojban, then you know my views on that.

> No doubt some usages will occur that contraduct each other in subtleties
> of logic.  But I am content to let that happen and resolve it later when
> we actuall can see the examples of how it leads to problems.

You are content to let that happen and resolve it later: ok. So
what. Why bother participating in the debates of those who aren't
content, and instead want to discover better usages now? We don't
have to wait to find examples: I can tell you that as a linguist
myself. Although one does stumble upon key examples in natural
data, usually one doesn't notice them, or can't find them when
needed, so instead one creates the example utterances one needs.

And how will you resolve it later?

> And I am not entirely sure a problem has occurred until someone says
> something that someone else cannot understand based on all information
> available includingcontext.

Fine. But not all of us feel the same way. Some of us desire there
to be a close match between the literal meaning of our utterances
and the intended meaning. Indeed, that is a semi-implicit part of
the language design, you tell us. So those of us who do care will
endeavour to solve these things that you do not think problems.

--And