Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumt...
The current discussion about this and the other
sumtcita sections reminds us of how tenuous is
the connection between those pages and reality.
A significant number of entries on each of the
sumtcita pages are not based upon actual usage
but upon (nowhere justified) applications of
(nowhere justified) principles derived the
unimaginative literalism which is pandemic in the
Lojban community. As a result, a number of
potentially useful expressions have been
preempted for usages that are unlikely ever to go
beyond the fabricated examples, while relations
which they might have accomodated may go without
Zipfy expressions.
The "principles" employed are a peculiar mix of
vague formulation (well, actually, they are
unformulated) and rigorous application, so that
the results are often as surprising as they are
useless. It would seem that a more honest and
ultimately useful approach would be to deal with
the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps, but
not forcing them into the molds devised for the
unused forms) and then acknowledge the
possibilities for further forms, with some
indication of the factors that might play a riole
in their uses (though just how would be left
open ). This seems more in line with the history
of these forms so far: relations with
"corresponding" brivla are fluid, as is the role
of converters and {nai} — what is used is what
is useful and related (however remotely) to the
forms already established.
Considerable work seems to have gone into these
pages and they may have added somewhat beyond
dealing with existing forms, but each item needs
an independent justification beyond fitting some
imagined pattern.