Re: ni, jei, perfectionism

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

>>Unless the person gave the translation, it is not necessarily clear that an
>>indirect question was intended.
>
>Ok, I'll settle for a couple of examples where it can be reasonably argued
>that an indirect question was not intended. [I'm quite certain you could
>not find them, so I'm not suggesting that you waste time looking for them.
>But you seemed to think that the truth value use of {jei} was somehow well
>established.]

It is established by the prescriptive cmavo list.  If people used it
inventively but not correctly prior to the baseline, then it changes nothing.
The cmavo list definition of jei remains the same.

> >>My rampant use of du'u? Could you elaborate?
>>
>>I was correctly afraid that you would take that as an implied criticism.
>>It is not.
>
>My dictionary says: "rampant: marked by a menacing wildness,
>extravagance, or absence of restraint". Perhaps I was again
>misunderstanding one of your native speaker idioms... :)

Interesting definition.  Mine has
1. growing luxuriently, flourishing
2. spreading unchecked; widespread; rife
3. vioent and uncontrollable
4.  Architecture jargon)
5. rearing up on the hind legs

Within YOUR usage du'u is flourishing, and indeed rife (def.: frequent or
commonly occuring), andgrowing as yiou seem to find a du'u hidden in every
corner.

>>In English, we might use the indirect question formulation for either
>>type of expression "I discussed whether broda is true" sounds like an
>>indirect question, but if I indeed know that it is true, then most likely I
>>really am discussing the fact that it is true and not the indirect question
>>of whether it is true.  But when making a statement about personal
>knowledge
>>or actions involving a not specified value, we don't NEED to use an
>indirect
>>question in Lojban, and with truth values that are known but unspecified,
>>it may seem awkward.
>
>I really don't know what you're getting at. They are slightly different
>indirect
>questions, but they're both indirect questions

In English we are prone to saying "I know whether x is true",  But if indeed
we do know, then why do we not say "I know THAT x is true" or "I
know THAT x is false."

If I am a teacher and I say that we will discuss in class "whether X is true"
and I know that X is indeed true, Then we will spend no time discussing
the stated indirect question, but instead will be discussing "The fact that
x is true" and perhaps "WHY x is true".

In the forner case, what appears to me an indirect question is not really -
it is an English idiom, and there is a non-indirect-question that can
substitute.  In the second, either a different indirect question is being
discussed, or it is a fact that is being discussed.

>>Skipping djuno, which can cause problems just because of its place
>structure,
>>we could do "I say who went to the store" as
>>mi cusku ledu'u makau klama le zarci
>
>I would like that to be so, but it isn't. According to the gismu list the x2
>of cusku
>is a text, not a du'u,
I stand corrected le sedu'u or lu'e ledu'u.

>>The judgement that it is "bad" is ONLY because people make judgements just
>like
>>you just have, that Lojban is like Jorge' usage of Lojban which is an
>>invalid generalization.

>But that was made to counter your claim that Lojban is like Nick's usage.


That is not what I was tryimg to claim.  I was trying to claim that Lojban
is not necessarily like any one person's usage, and that Nick did not seem
to adopt your usage implied that at that time the question was still open.
Since then, 95% of all Lojban usage in the record is one 2 month email
conversation between you and Goran and Chris with occasional others
chiming in. (unless we count all the individual setences used in examples
during technical discussions as "Lojban usage").

I am not willing to conced that one conversation however long determines
"usage", so I claim that the usage history is indeterminate.

I don't see anybody insisting on jei usage because I see no one othert than
you making extensive use of the language, and you havemade your opinion clear.
You have also convinced me that jei needs tu'a in some cases.  But I am not
mcuh of a Lojban user these days so that is a small victory indeed.

>In no way do I want to
>imply that my usage should be taken as an example of good style in
>general.

But it is, until we get others posting in the language on a scale to at least
offset your style with alternative styles.

We won't get such usage unbless we get people started using sentences and then
multiple sentences, etc.  And my experience is that we have to be careful
not to be hytpercorrective if we indeed understand.  Adults CAN learn languages
like kids do (I know personally, since that is how I learned much of my
Russian), discovering and self-correcting their errors over time merely by
using the language and seeing what works.

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.