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

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

>> >What is a universe of discourse?
>>
>> YOU are asking ME to define this?  Logicians and matrhematicians seem to hav
>> a clear idea what it means, but I am not sufficiently competent at either
>> discipline to even try to define it in terms that you won't poke a zillion
>> holes in.
>
>O well. I'll draw a blank then. Do logicians and mathematicians
>have a clear idea that there can be a universe of discourse
>--More--
>restricted to the set of even numbers? -- It's not an important
>point, but for me it would be an educational one.

I believe that when mathematicians do proofs, they restrict the domains of
their proofs to portions of mathematical space.  It is possible to define
sets consisting of, for example only the even numbers, and then make
all manner of deductions about that set and operations on that set.  My
understanding is that this is what a universe of discourse means.  In human
speech, the universe of discourse is usually either the real world or the
in-mind world of the speaker, and hopefully the speaker marks the latter if
he knows that it deviates relevantly from the real world.

>> No, but if my brain associates them as a threesome, then my brain is
>> observing li ci.  My brain can do things that my ears cannot.
>
>This debate is a red-herring. What is really pertinent is not
>the meaning of "observe" but rather the difference between
>abstract and concrete entities. One difference between them is
>that only concrete entities can serve as sensory stimuli.


I was talking  zgana and not ganse.
I am not sure whether viska, tirna, etc are clear betweenactually sensory
stimuli and what is perceived.  The sensory stimulus I am now receiving is
light of certain frequencies from a CRT.  What I see are words on a screen.

I think that the difference between these two is a significant a level of
abstraction as the difference between concrete objects and abstract events.
I will maintain that I see and viska words on a screen (but also light
from a CRT), because my sensory appratus includes some amounyt of
built in abstraction.

>{jei} (i)  "is truth value of p" [some value on the T--F scale]
>      (ii) "whether p is the case"


I don't see the difference.  Any way of communicating ii is some mapping of
(i)

>{ni}  (i)  "is the amount to which p is the case" (?) [some kind
>              of quasi numerical thing]
>      (ii) "how much p is the case"
>
>In each case, (i) is a kind of value or numerical thingy, and
>(ii) is an indirect question.

I thought indirect qyestions were marked by kau?

>There was a long thread on this a month or two ago, which I did
>not participate in.


And which like all  the rest petered out after much volume with no resolution
and obviously just as much confusion among at least as many people as when we
started.  Yet I have yet to see a Lojban statement using jei that I did not
understand.

>> >OK, though it might then be a good idea for you to disclaim
>> >authority rather more ostentatiously than you have been doing.
>>
>> Why?  Everyone participating in this debate knows that Lojban Central
>> has no authority to override the refgrammar any more than anyone else
>> does.

>
>Noone has advocated overriding the refgrammar. Overriding the
>refgrammar is of no relevance to this debate (unless example
>sentences in the refgrammar count as canonical usage).

Many people consider them as such, and the book was written assuming that
many peple would treat them as canonical.  I will not claim any more than
that %^), though someone else might.
>> I don't think I need to disclaim tjis to you in every message
>> do I?  My authoritynow resides solely in the extent to which I use the
>> language.
>
>I can't help thinking of you as Prime Minister of Lojbanistan.

Far be it for  me to comment on British politics, but I suspect that Mr.
major did not have much authority in his last few weeks in office.

In my case, I was neither elected by the populace nor appointed by the
nolrai of Lojbanistan, and hence have considerable limits to my authority %^)

Indeed, I suspect that these days, if Cowan and I disagree on matters Lojbanic,
you might come to feel otherwise as to who has superior authority.  Indeed,
if Nick were an active reader and spoke up, he would probably out-authorize
me.  Nora and pc and Shoulson also do so in specific areas that they specialize
in.

And when you talk about Montague semantics, I claim no authoirty at all.

>But I am staggered by the contradictory positions you take in
>different threads. On the one hand you are saying to Ashley
>that there is an ongoing prescription (or "non-binding social
>pressure") that established conventions of Lojban be observed
>in usage, and when I say the same thing to you you then say the
>opposite.

Lt me continue to be contrary then.  I maintain that I am quite consistent.

I contend that the discussions we are having now are NOT established
conventions.  That is why we are arguing.  That which is stated in the
refgrammar is presription.  That which is stated inthe dictionary is
prescription.  That which is to be stated in the textbook is prescription
(though the authority of the latter will be considerably proscribed by the
prior two works).

Stuff that appeared in Lojban text prior to the baseline, and which is not
contradicted by the baseline has some authoirty as bona fide usage of the
language.  Likewise things we said in non-baselined documents whihc are
not contradicted by thebaseline documenbts serve as indications of intent
and therefore have limited prescriptive force.

ALL postbaseline discussions purporting to clarify and/or interpret the
baseline documents, above and beyond trivialities like typo corrections if
some are found necessary are de jure nonprescriptive.  My arguments with
Ashley are based to a limited extent on baseline documents, andto a less
liited extent on pre-baseline statements of intent.  They have less force than
the baseline documents, but some force as statements of intent, and some
force as statements of my policy as a Lojban speaker/listener (but the latter
is not prescriptive).  We have set no policy on what the riole of myself and
anyone else who serves as an LLG editor of Lojban text will have as a
prescriptive force (i.e. what kinds of errors we can/will reject) but I hope
my role will be no greater than any other person who copuld speak the language
as well as me.

I am perhaps a little harsher towards Ashley because, whereas you have
written texts in the language and more or less successfully communicated in
the language, you have some credibility as a Lojban speaker.  So far as I know
Ashley is still arguing from a theoretical standpoint and not as an actual
user of the language.  I'm not that much interested intheory right now- I want
to make the language WORK, and let the theory explain what happens later.
And some usages, in myopinion simply will not work.  Others, like the ones
you and Jorge argue, might or might not work, but I cannot honestly say that
I am worried to much about loigical consistency in usages that have not yet
been debated.  If people use things and they are misunderstood, then someone
will correct them.  If usages are understood but the logic is faulty under some
assumptions, then the definitions and the assumptions will evolve to match
 reality.  I am quite sure that the evolving reality will still be a major order
 of
magnitude MORE logical than any natlang, but the fact that large percentages
of the community have no training in logic and probably cannot even follow
the discussions in the refgrammar, much less your arcanities of Montague
semantics and lambda calculus, etc., means that those discussions will not
be heeded by most users unless you and JHorge reach an agreement and then
simply swamp out lesser usages by sheer volume of your good examples %^).
THAT is the kind of usage-based prescription I want to see.  Jorge has gained
much of his clout even in the face of my disagreement with his theories,
by simply using the language.  Just as Nick did before him.  If I lose and
argument because someone uses the language more effectively than I do and
follows a different drummer within non-baselined usage, then I will be quite
satisfied.

>> Discussion in English on what "should be" is no longer
>> binding.
>
>So what if it is no longer binding. "Recommended" is sufficient.

I do my best to recommend only by example.  I may suggest possibilities if
someone asks how to translate something.  I may say how I would do it.
But I will not "recommend" per se any more than I can help.  Amd I may try to
limit any recommending to stating said recommnedation in Lojban simply to
discipline myself.

>> I guess if you want to argue the definition in Lojban someone might be
>> able to follow it.  But likely not me.
>
>It follows from what you've said that you think the only relevant
>messages on this list apart from announcements would be
>texts written in Lojban.

No.  The main need is for people to learn the language and for others to teach.
Thus messages that pose questions and which answer them are highly relevant.
Debating said questions outside the framework of a specific communication
(attempt) is what I see little point in, though even that might make sense
after there has been some usage as a summary of various usages and the pros
and cons of the different styles.

Since I read very few messages in Lojban due to lack of time, I am the last
 person to say that only Lojban traffic is relevant.
But even though I never read any of it, I sure miss the Chris/Goran/Jorge
conversation that went on for months (anyone know what happened to Goran
BTW - he is still subscribed technically, but his silence suggests that he
is not receiving traffic, and he never sent me a snail mail address so I
have no way of contacting him).

>But you presume no authority.

Correct.

>So it
>should be quite easy therefore for you to check whether messages
>are in Lojban or not and just delete the ones that aren't.

No point in that since I would read almost no messages then %^).

But more Lojban messages would help, and more beginners trying to use the
language and asking questions based on their attempts will be much valued.

>If it helps, we could put GLI or JBO in subject lines.

WE've tried the codes before, and they never work.  The main problem I
see now is that the debates are crowding out other discussion because key
people who might write in Lojban (e.g. Jorge) are writing in highly technical
English, and a lot of others who might TRY to write in Lojban are trying
merely to keep up with what the others are saying rather than trying to use it
themselves.

Indeed I have no authority.  i like an active Lojban List more than a silent
one though.  But I wish we had a list that invited more novices to participate
rather than to be shut out by the technical arcana.

Indeed, for all I dsiagree with Ashley, I have spent the time in debate
BECAUSE he is a novice and the time he is spending suggest that, like
iconoclast And Rosta a couple years ago, he might come around and become another
important user of the language.  i do not sidain the contribution of any new
person.

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.