Re: ni, jei, perfectionism

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

>>I found usages of jei in Nick's texts, several of which could be taken
>>as pertaining to an indirect question,
>
>The question is, did you find ANY that was not an indirect question?
>My claim was that the little usage that {jei} had was as an indirect
>questions.

That is arguable, but since jei wasn't designed for use in indirect questions,
the fact that it is notideal there is less important (I'll probably still
use tu'a le jei for some fo them, since I am less certain that I recognize
indirect question-hood in some places where we talk about truth).

It is clear that5 your ramapny use of du'u for all sorts of things has
indeed rendered some other usages less common.

>>This shows the weakness of such hypertechnical discussions.  They end up
>>having an effect on the language ONLY of those who plow through them, and
>>only then if they happen to agree as to the analysis.
>
>That's your opinion. In my opinion many people started to use
>{le du'u xukau} instead of {le jei} thanks to one of those discussions,

"many people"?  I don't think "many people" have used EITHER le jei or
le du'u xukau.  Most people who have done stuff in the langauge have been
doing translations, and it just doesn't come up much in literature.

>>But in any case, it does not appear that there has been a lot of usage of
>>jei in any form since the whole issue of indirect questions was raised.
>
>Right. Perhaps that happened as a result of the discussion? {jei} becomes
>practically useless if not used as an indirect question.

No, it merely gets restricted to its original purpose, which had nothing to
do with indirect questions.  I agree it is not the type of thing that is
frequently needed, but then this is true of at leats half the cmavo.
Iff we ever return to fuzzy logic, jei will be more useful.

>>jei as an indirect question because he did not agree with his critics'
>>analysis, or because no one ever pointed out that jei was being used for
>>an indirect question.
>
>Nick's texts predate the discussion, I'm pretty sure. Indeed, most of
>his texts predate my participation in the list.

And unfortunately, other than you and Goran and Chris, almost no one
has done ANY extensive text in the language since Nick went inactive.
Thus, except for you, MOST Lojban usage has predated all the technical
discussions, and it seems true to me that the technical discussions were
a significant factor in choking off  efforts of less experienced Lojbanists
to attempt to use the language.  THis in turn is why I have been so loud on
that topic.

In reality, it may be that use of the language has been at a constant low level,
 and merely has been drowned out by the technical discussions, but it is also
true that no one has really tried much in the way of longer Lojban texts since
the ckafybarja project became quiescent.

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.