Re: more perversity (was Re: more epistemic perversity (wa

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

>> Because other people are not leaving it to usage, but instead are arguing
>> about the semantics (in English nonetheless).  If it is going to be debated
>> then I feel a need to include my intent as a counterpoint to other opinions
>> - having no more ingherent weight, but still serving as a reminder that the
>> opinions being discussed DO have an alternative.
>
>But you repeatedly repeatedly reiterate your intent. It should be
>sufficient to state your intent in a single message.

Because people keep on asserting things contrary to my intent in multiple
messages %^).  And in English.  As long as the debate is confined to English,
then my intent has at least as much weight as anything else except the
prescription (which is vague).  My intent is irrelevant in the face of actuall
communicative usage, which is the ultimate arbiter of the language and the
meaning of the prescrioption.  But as long as we continue to have English
language semantic discussions, I feel compelled to reiterate my intent in
the face of arguments that seem to ignore my intent.

Humpty Dumpty notwithstanding, I should think that what I intended the words
to mean when I wrote what is now prescription (but was not intended at the time
it was written to have quite the nature it seems to have acquired), is
rleevantm especially given the polysemy of English words.

>They do carry weight, if only by sheer bulk. You have written an
>immense volume of mail stating your intent about djuno over and over
>again, and clearly it has carried weight, because you keep on getting
>replied to rather than ignored, even though everyone who has
>contributed to this daft thread is taking the view that is contrary
>to yours.

The fact that they argue with me rather than simply agree to disagree
suggests that somehow some amount of unclearness persists.  ("They" in this
case being predominantly Jorge %^)

>> I said specifically that I reject it in pronciple.  That it is part of the
>> prescription anyway, and that even I may someday use it, shows what weight m
>> principles hold.
>
>What does rejecting something in principle involve?


I consider it inherently bad for the language to have zi'o, based on the
principles that I have understood regarding the language.  (I don't want to
reargue this though - I stated my objection back when zi'o was proposed at
length, and I lost.

lojbab