Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu

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

AP> Why is there a problem with
AP>
AP>         [It is] false [that] X1 [is] bluer-than
AP> [something-unspecified]
AP>
AP> since there must, for all X1 other than the ultimate blue,
AP> exist something that makes this statement true, namely the
AP> ultimate blue.  For the example of "bigger-than", there is
AP> no X1 that is excluded, since there is no ultimate big.

But then, for the ultimate blue thing, it is a true statement that it is
"not blue" since "it is false that (X1=the ultimateblue thing) is bluer than
the ultimate blue thing is true.  There is an unspecified value that makes
the statement true.

The problem with any theory of ellipsis that involves the nature of
unspecified values is that they presume speaker/listener cooperation.
The speaker must choose a value and stick to it at least for discussion of
a particular statement.  But also if there is no inherent restriction,
that value can be something totally ridiculous, as in the above argument.

We added not only zo'e, but zu'i as elliptical sumti, to allow at least two
options for the speaker who wants to ellipsize.  If Art doesn't like either
of these unspecifieds, he is welcome to propose a new definition of
"something unspecified" that meets his ideas, and we can assign some cmavo
to it if others like it.

I will note for the record that the current zo'e and zu'i were created by pc
and me in a long phone conversation or two way back when, with inputs from
Nora on the side.   There was also some amount of discussion of this back in
the TL days.  This is NOT, as Art suggests, a break with Loglan tradition,
but a choice among options that was discussed and never decided by JCB, but
in this case was by pc, who is/was Loglan's chief logician.

lojbab