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

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

>> >and John has proposed that
>> >a nu is an abstract thing, while usage indicates that a nu is
>> >a concrete thing
>>
>> And Lojbab thinks it is ambivalent because it depends too much on what you
>> mean by abstracty and concrete.
>
>I can't make any sense of that statement.
>It seems that you don't have an articulable view of what "nu" means.

Actually, I think I have articulkated it, but I have never managed to
understand what is unclear to you.  You seem to have this problem only
with "nu" and not with the subevent types, BTW ( or at least you do not
mention them), which adds to my confusion of the nature of the issue.

>> It also cannot be said that when the possibility of confusion is
>> not even being tested on the majority of people skilled enough in
>> the language and in logic to become unconfused.
>
>???? I can't parse that!

Lost my train of thought.  Most of the people who are skilled enough in
the language to be able to address the issue aren't even reading the
list, much less this discussion.  Henceit cannto besaid that this is an
issue for "most" or that "most" will understand the outcome.  "Most"
will never see or hear of the discussion.

>> Furthermore, we have taken the lexicographers view that all words
>> are to some degree polysemous. The meanings of a word in its
>> various usages could be mapped to semantic space as a kind of
>> scatter-plot rather than as a strict point, and the word "meaning"
>> is an area of that semantic space that encompasses all the usages.
>> (Of course this definition implies that usage determiones meaning,
>> which is why I insist on having more usage before we decide what
>> people mean.)
>
>If this is what you mean by polysemy, then let us speak of
>homonymy instead.

No that is not what I mean by polysemy, but it is a form of polysemy.
And it is plausble to me that some of your claimed examples of
homonymy/polysemy are just rather more scattered usages.

>Suppose {xlura} were a homonym, xlura1 meaning "flower, bloom",
>and xlura2 meaning "flowering plant". Then {lo`i xlura} would
>be ambiguous, according to whether it means the set of all
>flowers, or the set of all flowering plants.

But as a tanru modifier (seltanru) I suspect that xlura DOES encompass
both meanings as well as a large number of other plausible ones having
mildly to do with flowers. xlura does have different meanings depending
on its gramamtical role.  You seem to be concerned about polysemy of the
bare gismu as a selbri, which is a fairly limited question.

>> compounded by sumti raising errors that us sloppy English speakers habituall
>> promulgate.
>
>You keep on mentioning these alleged sumti-raising errors, but
>if at any point you showed them to be relevant, I missed that
>posting. Could you reexplain? I can't see what they have to do
>with ni and jei.

Here are excerpts from several messages in the last couple of days on
this. first last

Jorge:
>{jei} is defined in the refgram both as a truth value, and as an
>indirect question involving truth values.

Lojbab:
>I claim that the refgrammar does not define the second.  I will agree that
>Chap 11, 6.3) appears to contain an unmarked sumti-raising which would require
>a tu'a on the x2 to be ideal.  I think that we will find that there are
>other usages in the refgrammar that have hidden sumti-raising which makes them
>less than perfect examples of the language in light of the given English
>translation.  But the fact that an example is not entirely consistent with
>the text describing the principle does not make the text definition incorrect.
>
>I can accept that the refgrammar examples will have logical flaws, especially
>with regard to their given English translations, while upholding the
>refgrammar as a baseline standard.
>
>(Resolving an apparent inconsistencey between the rst of the section and
>6.3) merely requires that I analyze that the English transaltion given for
>6.3) does indeed reflect a sumtiraising of an indirect question.  Neither
>the translation nor the text discussion indicate that the indirect question
>was supposed to be the meaning of the jei.

Jorge:
>As well as 11,7.3) and 11,7.6). Indeed in every example in which {jei} is
>used in a full bridi.
>
>Also, practically all of the not many times it has been used in actual
>texts has been like that.
>
>Maybe that's not by definition, but there are clearly two meanings:
>one in theory and a different one in practice.

Lojbab:
>I'll agree about 7.3 - we KNOW that the x2 of djuno is supposed to be a
>fact that is known.  7.6 I am less sure of.  It seems that one can
>be curious about an "object" as well as about a "realtionship".  i do not
>know what you surmise the implicit abstraction to be as.
>
>>Also, practically all of the not many times it has been used in actual
>>texts has been like that.
>
>We do have a problem with sumti raising.  It is consider a "bad thing" to
>not mark it, but it still happens.  Probably the same will be tru of
>unamrked irony.
>
>>Maybe that's not by definition, but there are clearly two meanings:
>>one in theory and a different one in practice.
>
>I think that there is only one meaning, and we know this because the people
>who make the error can recognize it is an error when it is pointed out.
>John hasn't said this of course, and he may choose not to since he has a
>certain necessary restraint needed as Author of Holy Writ. But especially
>the djuno example is pretty obvious and wouldn't be an issue if it weren't
>the less well understood jei that is at issue.
>
>IN any event, even if you call this "contradiction" it is very clear how
>the contradiction SHOULD be resolved.  And I suspect that if you had said
>simply that 7.3 should have had tu'a (or fi) to be consistent with the
>stated definition above, there would have been little or no debate.

Jorge:
>>I'll agree about 7.3 - we KNOW that the x2 of djuno is supposed to be a
>>fact that is known.  7.6 I am less sure of.  It seems that one can
>>be curious about an "object" as well as about a "realtionship".
>
>Maybe, but is it likely that anyone would be curious about the truth
>value TRUE?  Or about the truth value FALSE?  You are trying to make the
>example mean this, but why would anyone in their right mind use such an
>example in a pedagogical book?  From the context it is extremely clear
>that the intended meaning is not that.
>
>> i do not
>>know what you surmise the implicit abstraction to be as.
>
>I surmise it to be: {le du'u xukau ...}. That's what all the usage
>of {jei} ends up being.
>
> >>Maybe that's not by definition, but there are clearly two meanings:
>>>one in theory and a different one in practice.
>>
>>I think that there is only one meaning, and we know this because the people
>>who make the error can recognize it is an error when it is pointed out.
>
>I'm glad you now think that. How long will it take to convince you that
>exactly the same thing goes on with {ni}?
>
> >IN any event, even if you call this "contradiction" it is very clear how
>>the contradiction SHOULD be resolved.  And I suspect that if you had said
>>simply that 7.3 should have had tu'a (or fi) to be consistent with the
>>stated definition above, there would have been little or no debate.
>
>Are you sure that's not what I said? I think I and others said it more
>than once, but the issue keeps cropping up.

And of course, if it had indeed been put that the refgrammar had usage
errors due to sumti raising that were occluding the definition of jei
rather than that there were two contradictory definitions of jei in the
refgrammar, I think I would have understood much quicker.  And since one
of the examples in question involved the x2 of djuno, where many
previous debates have led to a ledu'u being the non-sumti-raised value,
that this was an unmarked sumti rasing should never have been in doubt.

>> I think that usage will gravitate towards a specific meaning,
>> which meaning for jei is the one where Ch 11, 7.3) wil come to be considered
>> invalid sumti raising.
>
>Which one is that? (Our web connection is down again so I can't
>check.)

mi djuno lejei la frank cu bebna

It should have been

mi djuno tu'a lejei la frank cu bebna

or
mi djuno fi lejei la frank cu bebna

to not be sumti rasing since the x2 of djuno is normally a ledu'u abstract
sumti

>If by some contorted reasoning you are saying that the indirect
>question use is the illicit one, then I would like to know how
>you reach this conclusion. When used, jei has always had the
>"whether" meaning. So given that usage conflicts with the
>official definitions, and that the refgram endorses both sides
>of the conflict, how do you manage to decide that one is correct
>and one is incorrect?

The refgrammar in discussion only mentions one meaning.  The other
"meaning" is inferred from the examples.  As to whether jei has always
had the "whether" meaning, I could ghardly sa, without looking for the
examples in usage (of which there have been few I suspect since it isn't
the most useful thing in the language - and most usages will date to
before tu'a entered the language in any event.

How to decide which is correct?  Other parts of the refgrammar discuss
the insidious nature of sumti raising.  In addition, the refgrammar says
that in case of dispute between documents the dictionarty will have
precedence (actually he says that this is true for the gismu and lujvo
and did not mention cmavo, but they also will be in the dictionary -
right now the dictionary consists of the existing wordlists, though I
hope we can elaborate some cmavo definitions based on the refgrammar
text where no meaning change would result.)

>If by some contorted reasoning you are saying that the indirect
>question use is the illicit one, then I would like to know how
>you reach this conclusion.

Section 8 of Chap 11 discusses indrect questions explicitly and
indicates that they involve use of ledu'u and/or kau except in certan
positions like the x3 of djuno.  The examples in section 7 are not even
identified as indirect questions, so it is possible that Cowan did not
realize he was disagreeing not only with his early definition of jei,
but with the indirect question discussion on the very next page.

But even so, I notice that the examples 7.3 and 7,6 are considered only
as possibilities, with the ledu'u version being the more obviously
correct.  (This is stated in the commentary on 7,4 and 7.5).

>Note that that ni/jei thread was asking which of the two meanings
>of ni/jei was correct. IIRC noone was arguing that the homonymy
>answer was desirable; it just seemed to be the de facto situation.

And it may be that the whole debate would have been preempted if John
hads been reading it or if I had picked up on what the issue really was
a lot sooner.

>John is of course an authority on the baseline, but Jorge is an
>authority on unsolved problems (= valid questions to which there is
>no established answer). As the baseline is well documented, thanks to
>John, and the unsolved problems are not, I think the knowledge stored
>in Jorge's mind is more precious than that stored in anyone else's.

Maybe we should ask Jorge to document these clearly, along with his
thinking as to what multiple options have been presented in usage or
refgrammar.  Then the various people can look over the list and see if
there is agreement that they are unresolved before we go trying to
resolve them %^)

>I am not sure even here whether you are correct. I can well
>believe that Nick, you and Nora can remember and recognize more
>words than others can, but I am not at all sure that you are
>as aware of the patterns and systems and anomalies in the lexicon
>as, say, Jorge has demonstrated himself to be.

I think Nick knows those patterns as well from his lujvo making
analysis, and Nora has been reviewing that analysis in depth.  Colin did
the keyword list for all the non-x1 places and presumably spotted a lot
of patterns.  I have of course done many systematic reviews of the
entire list.

This is not to denigrate Jorge's knowledge.  But he has in the past said
that he did not know all the gismu, and he has said that he doesn't
understand why some of them are there and doesn't intend to use them
which may mean either that he sees an anomoly or that he is missing
information.  It is hard to tell.  Jorge has sometimes in the past been
tripped up in understanding because of my uncflear idiom, where it runs
afoul of his most excellent 2nd language mastery of English.

>An instinct which my instinct tells me is probably wrong. - I'm
>not referring to Dave Twery in particular, but rather to get
>feelings about style that are professed by various people
>(notably Nick) without immersing themselves in a deeper understanding
>of the language.

These kinds of "instincts" have driven the language design much more
than careful analuysis has (much to your chagrin, I am sure).  This is
partly because the designer(s) don't trust our analytic capability to
work as well as our instincts.  (This trait dates back to JCB as well,
BTW).  The fact has been that for the most part we have been able to
communicate our instincts to each other and they have tracked well.  It
is only when we try to attacj theory and formalism to these instincts
that we start to have trouble.  And I think it is that we do not know
how to express the ideas prperly in a manner suitable and rigorous
enough for analysis of the sort that you are doing, rather than that the
language design is inconsistent.

>We are both "anti-Cowans" in our tendency to publicly speak our
>mind. I'm sure you would blurt out your private list at some time
>or other.

Or I might get quoted from a private message by a suitably apologetic
Englishman %^)

>> >This is true. But you make this the case by definition, by excluding
>> >those who have not learnt sufficient Lojban and have not spent
>> >sufficient time using it.
>> >
>>
>> What do you mean "exclude"?
>>From the ranks of those whose opinions count.

ALL opinions count.  Those who have used the language more have their
opinions count more, and sometimes have their opinions count merely by
them being reflected in their usage.  I presume that as a linguist you
accept that usage overrides theory in case of conflict.  As Lojban moves
from being a prescription to being a language, usage will take
precedence over analysis, and the NEXT edition of the refgrammar will of
necessity be DESCRIPTIVE rather than prescriptive.

>I would trust Ashley because what he said rang true with me
>"instinctively"... (i.e. I agreed with him)

%^)

>Currently, the best way to communicate successfully in Lojban is
>to use the prevailing style, be as malglico as everyone else,
>and ignore niceties of logical meaning, so that they don't
>distract your interlocutor when they use their powerful
>pragmatic abilities to grock your meaning.
>
>Unless Lojban is defined as this beginner's level pidgin
>fumbling, then communicative ability is not proof of skill
>in Lojban.

I am as big a critic of malglico as anyone, but communicative use of
language trumps anything else on the market.  If the results of your
analyses prove to require that the language be too wordily expressed or
convoluted for the brain to understand in real time, then some
simplificatio will be necessary even if it does not accord with the
purest logic.  If people get so carried away with the logical structure
that they don't choose the right lexical words, choices, they will not
be understood.  I am not saying this will happen, but Iam doubtful that
analysis will prove as effective in finding problems as usage is.  I
base this on the last several years, where all that malglico pidgin
fumbling has uncovered errors and resolved them more quickly and easily
than the analytic approach has done.

>> (Reminder that this was NOT sent to the list).
>
>Which bits don't you want to be public. There are some bits
>of general interest.

Well you quoted the part where I said that I would rather not have my
off the cuff comments about personalities and their skills appear on the
list lest they be taken as serious thought out judgements rather than
middle of the night rtamblings, or that peoipl get the idea I do make
cuch judgementsof people before evaluating their ideas or opinions.  I
DO look at the opinion first.  If I see a flaw in the opinion, I may try
to classify to determine whether the flaw is due to incomplete
understanding of the language and the project as opposed to a
communication problem, or an error in the opiner's thinking or in my
own.  The people who I cited as being more "expert" I have seldom found
to be wrong.  Indeed at one point after Colin Fine introduced his
proposals regarding inner and outer quantification of sumti with
relative clauses I did thinkhe was wrong, but it was I that was
incorrect.  When someone is more often correct about the language than I
am, I tend to take heed.

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.